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).

Yosaff I'm pretty sure the figures looked at all the considerations you talk about.

Mystery it looks as if your ex deliberately wanted to exclude you from owning the property. For example, my mum never worked from when she married to long after I was a teenager- but she was still a joint owner of their home. what you have been led to believe is bollocks.
Looks as if the ex got that letter from the bank drawn up to protect his inheritance and TBH you ought to have shown it to your own solicitor before signing it.

CuckingFat 'If we split up I would get diddly squat from DP.
He would also get nothing of the savings I have in my name (and have had since before I met him). I am more than capable of supporting my child alone if he decided to disappear.'

Ok- that's you- but what about women who have no career, or who downsized it or gave it up when they married so that they would be the main carers for their children?

Not all families are based on 2 spouses working full time and each fulfilling their career potential- are they?

The majority of women who have children work part time. That is a fact.
There are very few women who earn enough part time to cover a mortgage- especially now in the SE- where mortgages are often 4 x a single full time high salary. (eg 4 x £50k+)

Your ideas are laudable but not all women - or men- have the intelligence, qualifications of even the desire to have a job that allows them to support themselves and their children on 1 salary alone.

It’s all very well saying, “just don’t procreate with someone who’ll leave you”. Few people actively choose to have kids with someone they think is an inherent arsehole. I bet most of the posters who start threads in Relationships thought that their partners were decent individuals until a mid-life crisis, mental health issues, OW or money problems reared their ugly heads. They must have missed the edition of Cosmo or GQ where they were giving away crystal balls.

Solicitors start at about £100 an hour. You can get married in a civil ceremony in our City Hall for £180. Why pay through the nose for a variety of legal docs that are collectively a poor imitation of marriage, that still don’t cover all eventualities?

Couldn't agree more.

I wouldn't have wanted to carry, birth and raise a man's children, compromising my health pelvic floor and earning ability without some legal recognition of the sacrifice I was making.

I have no truck with the 'weddings are so expensive' bollocks. I got married for under 1K, and it was a lovely wedding. I could have spent a lot less and still had a good time.

mystery I am so sorry you have lost your childhood home. You should def speak to another solicitor because I think the advice you were given was wrong. I think there was an implicit agreement from your parents that the home was being sold at a discount to both of you. They sold at a discount because you were family not him. A barrister that specializes in property costs about £500-700 an hour. I would def consider paying for an hour or two of their time so you know exactly where you stand. I also think your ex hoodwinked you. If the bank told you that you couldn't be on the title and you have evidence of that then I would sue them for the loss of your home.

It's certainly true that weddings and their cost have become a keep up with the Jones' thing.
We had 30 people for a lunch and honeymooned in Yorkshire for 3 days.
Using lack of money is an excuse. My parents married 2 years after WW2 ended, mum wore a dress loaned by an aunt and they had a 'tea' in the village hall. It cost next to nothing. People seem to have lost the plot with weddings which seem to be an excuse for a booze up and a party for friends and a posh holiday.

If you own the house jointly, and both work full time in similar level roles then I don't see a problem?

All the couples I know who tried to have as small and low budget wedding as they could still ended up spending thousands.

I know I couldn't do one I'd not be embarrassed by for less than £10k min. There's a reason people say they can't afford weddings- the average cost is £20k.

Dp's parents were married for 10 years when they split. His mum didn't get a penny and was left homeless.

Really? We married for a few hundred just five years ago. I wasn't embarrassed at all.

This thread is fucking depressing.

pinkfrocks yes that's me, but I'm not alone in my situation, know a lot of women who are the higher earners with the full time job, and I find it pretty patronising and insulting to see a thread title suggesting I should be married first to have my child. I didn't realise we were still living in the 50s.
There are women out there who get left high and dry and can't support themselves and the kids, yes. It is wrong I agree - but why should they have to get married? They should just have more rights to support simply as the mother of the mans child. I dont think anyone really disagrees there? I don't see why so much emphasis is on marriage.
The OP says she doesn't see any other reason why not to get married once you have kids - because some people just don't want to. It's no one else's business.

Jackie that is just such crap.

A marriage licence costs a few pounds. A civil wedding costs a few pounds.

What people mean when they say they can't afford a wedding is £100+ per guest x 200 , plus dresses and suits and venues, and then £10K on a honeymoon.

Anyone who says they would be embarrassed at spending a little needs to ask if they really understand what marriage is - or if they are really hosting an expensive party for everyone and an expensive holiday for themselves.

Cucking I'm not in the 1950s but you certainly aren't living in the real world. If this thread doesn't apply to you then look away- you aren't obviously one of the women who would need support from an ex. But many do .

Have a look at the ONS figures about how much women earn, how many work part time, and you and your friends will form a tiny minority.

Support already exists- the CSA or whatever it's called now.
Just some men find ways not to pay.

I spent £10k on our wedding in England and had a ball. The breakdown was venue and food £6k, tent £2k and the rest on booze (from France so cheap), music et al. We had a string quartet playing during dinner. Oh and I got married in 2008, not 1960.

Our wedding here in the US cost us $6k. I was furious with my MIL because her wishes cost us $3k. People who spend £20k on a wedding are nuts if you ask me. If you would be embarrassed for spending less than £10k then I think you have an issue with self worth and confidence. Quite frankly I don't give a shit what people thought of our wedding. It was our day, we loved it and our guests had the common decency to be thankful that we thought to share a very special moment in our lives with them. In fact many other couples followed our lead after our wedding and I had a lot of people ask me about how I put our day together.

My wedding in the late 1980s cost £350 for the food, my dress was £80. The cake and wine were paid for by my in laws.

so the issue isn't just marriage, but also responsibility towards child raising.

It really should be the case that once a person becomes a parent, then they are 100% unable to wriggle out of their responsibility. I know that this is a great theory which is almost unworkable in RL, but we don't even have laws which really reflect this, let alone a system to enforce it. The cap on the NRP contributions is pretty low - if one parent is left with 3 kids, and only a small % of a single salary to support them, then they are going to be reliant on benefits.

I think we should separate out commitment/love/duty towards a spouse and commitment towards children. Hopefully any caring person can feel that they no longer want to be married/living with their partner, but still want to support their children.

Can I ask what extra I would get if I married and then split up?

Recently there was a case that a judge thought an ex wife should go out to work and support herself and her children after they had reached year 2.
I recall the thread on MN was a general consensus of agreeing with the judge that the ex wife should get nothing as she wasn't looking for a job?

Hang on pin - are only women who feel they are in a vulnerable position able to post on this thread then?

Cucking's position, in which she is definitely not unique, is that not every woman has children with a partner and then ends up in a situation where they are financially and legally vulnerable. Many women are the more financially secure of the partnership.

Are they not then allowed to take part in a debate about marriage?

kickass I think to support your DC you need to support your spouse. The two are interdependent and can't be separated. Considering my family, I left a very well paid career because I wanted to be home more with my DH and future DC. If our marriage failed then DH would have a legal obligation to support me whereas if we were not married he would only have to support the DC.

Of course anyone can post Yasoff ,but she said she felt 'patronised'. That's her choice of reaction.

It goes without saying that there will be women to whom the advice of the OP does not apply.

But I am sure you will agree that there are far more women posting here and in RL who are complaining that their 'ex P' has left them and they have no money and no share of their joint assets, compared to those women who have high flying careers and can manage by themselves.

Yosaff, the overwhelming evidence of statistics is that far more women are financially vulnerable than men. Far more women live in poverty, far more single parent families with a female adult live in poverty, far more women earn less than men, even when doing the same job, far more women earn less than their partner.

Raising a child makes someone financially vulnerable, yet it's the more vulnerable half of a partnership that is often left doing it. There should be some legal protection for those people doing that, but the best there is is marriage, even though it doesn't give full protection.

I'm the slightly higher earner in my partnership but I've told DP that if it ever looks like my becoming a SAHP is the best thing for our family then we have to get married.

I will absolutely not give up my career or financial independence without that protection first.

Want2B - I was thinking more that any parent should look at the FULL cost of raising a child (and that includes paying for/supporting an adult to give adequate care). Either the adult does that themselves, or they pay for the real cost of someone doing it (e.g. your partner providing enough money for you to do his share of childcare, homing them, feeding them etc.) That it should be seen as a contract which cannot be evaded, rather than as linked to any feelings towards you as a current/past spouse.

you only have to look at who sits at the supermarket tills, who is a dinner 'lady' , who is a cleaner, a carer, a part time office worker, to see they are by and large, women. I wonder why that is? Are women lazy perhaps- or are they finding work (poorly paid) that will fit in with child care?