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).

It's not about not having kids without getting married.

It's about not becoming financially dependent on another person without ensuring you have the most legal protection available.

Generally that will be marriage. Increasingly it can be a cohabitation agreement.

Absolutely agree 100%. If a man is committed enough to get married he's not committed enough to be a father. Why won't a man get married. Because he wants to leave his options open.

What if the woman doesn't want to get married?

It'd not just about the though Thurlow. Marriage affords you a whole raft of protections and privilages that are not about money or financial independence.

If you have children you life is linked to your partner in one form or another for the rest of your lives. Other agreements do not provide the breadth and depth of protections and are not as well tested in law.

Marriage is not necessary.

What is necessary is to have a good long think before becoming financially dependent on another person, which many, many women do when they have children. And then are left to the whims/desires/goodwill of the working parent. Works the other way with sahds too.

The law can redress the balance only to some extent.

The problem is having a child with a poor choice of partner, and not thinking about long term finances, rather than marriage or not. Marriage can be a simple protective step for those who aren't convinced of their partner (not sure this is what a marriage is meant for though!), but it isn't necessary for every woman.

Arseholes don't come neatly labelled. Some seem perfectly nice until they develop a mid-life crisis, start an affair with a woman in accounts, and prefer to believe it's all some huge romance and the current relationship with an utter hag so they don't have to cope with the guilt. This leads them to behave diabolically badly, and if married, there's usually a limit on the level of financial havoc they can cause.

There is also the fact that destitution should not be a deserved penalty for a bad choice of partner. It should most especially not be the penalty for any children, who had no choice at all.

Marriage protects non-financial contributions to a relationship. My DS is autistic, and while also very bright, he absolutely depends on coming home from school and being cared for by me, so he can relax and settle from the stresses of his day. No financial plan could have catered for that. My marital status protects my career sacrifice from being mine alone, should my marriage ever fail and my husband's decency in the face of that prove less than I hope and believe.

Marriage affords you a whole raft of protections and privilages that are not about money or financial independence.

Such as?

Sorry, that ^^ ended up coming out far narkier than I meant it to

Please have a read of the Law Commission's report into financial hardships suffered by cohabitees on separation.

lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/cohabitation.htm

It's a common myth that it's easier to leave if you're not married. In some ways, it's more difficult than getting divorced. I would have had more rights to stay in my house with my child if I'd been married.

Are you not referring to a situation where the DH earns significantly more than the DW though, usually in fact a family who are wealthy through the husbands contributions?

My DF is about the have a baby unmarried. Her and her BF own their house 50:50. He is a low earner; she will give up work but provides an income from investments. Is there a risk she should be aware of? I understand things can change financially (but so can the decision to marry!)

Arseholes don't come neatly labelled.

No they don't indeed. That's why people who believe their choice of partner is foolproof and that they aren't subject to the same risks are deluding themselves.

I'm not sure what privileges come with marriage

It's all about the money according to this thread.

I agree people should think carefully before they tie themselves up to a very unsuitable person. I had a couple of lucky escapes no thanks to myself. But most people know what their partner is like but hope they will change. They won't. I agree that married or unmarried to a nasty mean abuser is still the recipe for misery.

I'm aware this is going to make me sound like a right thicko, but I'm going to ask anyway....

What counts as assets? DH works, I don't (although I plan to go back when youngest starts school) but we don't own any property. We have a joint checking account but separate savings and I have more in my mine. Would I be entitled to anything from DH anyway, should we split?

?? that is all!

This is a great table of some of the differences.

www.findlaw.co.uk/law/family/marriage_and_civil_partnerships/500135.html

I've never really wanted marriage, seeing my mum and auntie go through difficult divorces put me off. Instead I keep my own bank account and my own home for my own security.

What benefits exactly do marriage give that aren't covered by other things?

I am not currently married but have 2 children. I work ft and am happy that if we split up I would be able to support myself and the children in conditions only slightly lower than we currently have. Dp works pt and he is the one who needs the legal protections that are more commonly needed by women (because more pt workers/sahps are women). We just aren't sure exactly what these extra legal protections are?

I'd be fine of DP left me and baby, I work full time and have a pay packet that supports me and then some.

We both don't want to get married right now, plus I'm not divorced from the ex yet and I'm not planning on becoming a biggomist any time soon .

It's only when you get divorced that you realise how valuable marriage is.

Well said BallsToThat.

I have children and am not married. dp and I live together and support them together, we both work. If we split it will actually cost me less because there will be no legal fees related to a divorce. he is never not going to assist with their support while they are dependent. If he tries it I will just get on our lives: my job will cover us, it's my house. He has no large assets I want a piece of for my sake. If he decided suddenly he didn't care about his dds I would be more surprised and concerned for them emotionally than materially. It could happen - I can't imagine him not caring about them but I can see it could happen - but if so, we'll be fine.

I think we should get married ultimately, because when you have a house, someone is going to die first, and the other would be much better off. We'll get round to it. But the OP is full of false assumptions.

I actually think that a certain cynicism / independence of spirit that is SOMETIMES associated with CHOOSING not to get married, is a better equipment for life than a pointless trust in patriarchal institutions and traditions

Thurlow like I said our experience has been that being married gives you a lot of medical benefits related to your next of kin status. We only realised this while writing the living will. Some hospitals will only let NOK into certain areas, consult on decisions etc. Cohabiting couples agreements are fairly narrow and fine for protecting property in the Uk but they won't be recognised anywhere else. For example in a lot of cases you won't be viewed as a family unit should you wish to emigrate.

(it wasn't that snarky[wink )

'I actually think that a certain cynicism / independence of spirit that is SOMETIMES associated with CHOOSING not to get married, is a better equipment for life than a pointless trust in patriarchal institutions and traditions'

this ^