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).

I'd be inclined to agree with the OP's original assertion. I know it doesn't sit well with the feminists here, but I'm of the view that for most women (there will be exceptions of course) marriage is the most efficient way of getting the legal recognition you need if you're contemplating being a SAHP.

But I feel patronised by the attitude of some posters too.

I would never disagree that everyone needs to be better educated on the legal rights marriage provides, and that the concept of common law marriage does not exist in this country.

But there are wider conversations on this topic to be had simply than 'get married'. Marriage has a romantic, moral, emotional history to it that many people have an issue with and are thus against. Though clearly many people want that public, romantic side of marriage - most people, probably.

There is a conversation that needs to be had, as part of our changing society, about whether a partner who lives with someone and had children with someone owes them support regardless of whether they are married or not. And it's not always people in romantic relationships with children who can get caught in this situation. Other countries allow the legal and financial obligations of a UK marriage to be agreed on with anyone, not just a romantic partner. Why can't we be discussing that as well?

One of the big reasons why I feel it is so important not simply to focus on marriage as the only means of financial and legal protection is because of vulnerable women. How many women who have become SAHM's to children with a DP, not a DH, have done so because their partner is abusive and never agreed to marriage in the first place? Who kept promising it, again and again, but never went through with it? They miss out. And they undoubtedly need a huge amount of support.

YoSaff - I agree, we should be discussing the wider options. I really think that the current laws of marriage are inadequate and out-dated. That's why I think we should have the requirement for supporting kids to be seen as separate. Even now there is the link between the romantic relationship of the parents and the support for the kids when they don't have to be so closely linked.

Olivermumsarmy, you say:

I haven't worked for years but not only is my name on the mortgage of our current home and every other home we have owned/mortgaged, but I am also on BTL mortgages together with my DP. I have never married DP but my name is down to receive his life insurance if anything should happen, I get private health care through his employer and I will also receive his pension if anything happens to him. We have been together 35 years.

The one area you haven't got covered (possibly) is inheritance tax. Married couples effectively get double the nil rate band as the surviving spouse gets whatever of the deceased spouse's nil rate band isn't used. You can also leave everything to a spouse and there will be no IHT to pay on that. If you have substantial assets this is a huge tax advantage.

Maybe explain why you feel patronised?

I would call myself a feminist. I had a professional, graduate level career and supported myself for years before I had children, but I effectively gave up full time work when I had DCs because DH was overseas a lot and I chose to be their main carer rather than using child care.

This meant that my career was put on hold for many years and had we split up when DCs were small, I'd have not been able to provide the level of income we'd had as a couple.

If I had been unmarried then I'd have lost my home and so would they if we'd split.

The laws around marriage and support for wives ( or husbands) exists because marriage is a contract which has financial implications in the event of divorce. As does a business where 2 partners invest in it and then one wants to walk away- the other's assets and investments are protected by the contract.

If people don't want to marry, fair enough. But then they can't complain if they end up worse off.

marriage is the best way to protect the most vulnerable- children- and that is why it's better for couples with children to marry.

Sorry, I just really don't agree that marriage is the solution.
I certainly do live in the real world but not every single woman with children is in exactly the same position in life. If I was married, I would come off worse in a split with my DP than the way I am now.
If marriage gives a woman more security, fine. I am not against marriage. I just don't think marriage has to come with having children.
I'm entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.

It's patronising, as any sweeping statement is, because not everyone is in the same situation. It's patronising to assume that anyone who hasn't decided to get married has done it without looking into the facts. It's patronising to assume that anyone who is not married is in a less committed relationship and more likely to split up. It's patronising to insinuate that couples who aren't married haven't thought as much about their children's welfare.

It's patronising in the same way that claiming all mums do the school run, or all dads take kids to sports classes, or any other general and sweeping assumption that all families and partnerships operate in exactly the same way.

But more importantly, far more importantly than a few people being patronised (which is simply our personal reaction), as I said, a discussion focusing entirely on marriage as the solution ignores many vulnerable partners who aren't able to just get married, and in a small way is a block to the much needed wider conversation.

Before I joined MN I assumed that all women who were not married were in full possession of the facts.

From this forum I have been horrified to learn how many women have absolutely no idea that cohabiting does not have the same legal and financial protections as marriage. How many women with children who would like to get married but their partners fob them off with 'it's just a bit of paper'.

There have been threads on this forum for women with dysfunctional parents, there have been threads on identifying abusive relationships. I don't pitch up on those threads all offended, saying it's patronising to assume that all women have dysfunctional families or can't identify abuse. Those threads aren't aimed at me.

Posters can say in an ideal world the law should be changed to give cohabitants the same rights as spouses, and I entirely agree. However, changing the law is a long process, and as of right now, the practical reality is you are much better protected legally and financially if you are married than if you are not, unless you are the partner with all the assets.

I still don't understand why anyone just react so strongly as to feel patronised.

of course what the OP wrote won't apply to everyone but it is still relevant to some women which was the intention.

It's patronising, as any sweeping statement is, because not everyone is in the same situation.

Okay- so why not say it's not relevant to you? If you choose to feel patronised that seems very emotional, rather than saying it doesn't fit with your lifestyle and choices.

It's patronising to assume that anyone who hasn't decided to get married has done it without looking into the facts.

I don't think the OP said everyone - but if you read MN you will find may women don't understand their rights- or lack of them.

It's patronising to assume that anyone who is not married is in a less committed relationship and more likely to split up.

The stats show that people who co-habit are more likely to split up by quite a big margin.

It's patronising to insinuate that couples who aren't married haven't thought as much about their children's welfare.

Some haven't. or they choose to ignore the protection the law gives married couples.

It's patronising in the same way that claiming all mums do the school run, or all dads take kids to sports classes, or any other general and sweeping assumption that all families and partnerships operate in exactly the same way

This is another topic and no one said this.

Playing devil's advocate, the laws now protect women in such a way that many younger men are very wary of marriage especially if their potential wives earn less, because men have a lot to lose even when it is not their 'fault' and divorce as well all know is 'no fault'.

In some countries- New Zealand for example- the split is 50-50 regardless of length of marriage and many men - who are high earners or have inherited money- are worse off when women divorce them and sometimes have married them only to get a share of the assets.

kickass sorry I misunderstood you!

that I don't agree with your attitude. I married someone who earned less than me and had less. I protected my premarital assets. Things have reversed over the past 7 years. I would certainly not want the father of my DC to be left with nothing if we had decided to end the relationship and he had been a SAHD. We got married knowing it was for better or worse and today we are both better for being married.

yosaff I would not move in with a guy let alone have DC with them unless they put a ring on me. Due to marriage and religion being so intertwined I think schools have not had the necessary frank discussions with teenagers so they full understand the consequences of their choice to have DC before being married.

We once had a Danish couple say they wanted the benefits of marriage but not the piece of paper. She viewed marriage as the wife being lesser than the husband. DH and I were a little mindfucked by that one! DH actually said 'well get married and hide the piece of paper. Look, super over here doesn't even wear a ring and often forgets to use Mrs'!

I'm not comfortable with stats that show that couples cohabating are more likely to split up then married couples, or at least those with kids.

I'm not sure what years they cover but there's a definite noticable frinds with parents at my kids school and couples I know from my home town - married couples with kids do seem more likely to split up than cohabiting couples with kids.

On my kids starting school there was a (rough) split of 60% married+kids and 40% cohab + kids. Five years down the line and ~30% of the married+kids have split. None of the cohabs and kids have split.

Maybe its just my social circle but marriage seems to provide a less stable environment for kids. I think a big part of is that marriage is seen more as a demonstration/party for a lot of party. Or, an OTT gesture. Living with someone can be hard work at time. Marriage, as a legal process and esp. with a big wedding bill, does seem to make living together harder.

Not sure how important it is to 'feel comfortable' with stats ( implying they are false?)

This sets out the stats from the ONS.

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/10074614/Almost-no-couples-with-children-who-stay-unmarried-stay-together-study-claims.html

It might be another topic but IMO, it's still very relevant. It's patronising when anyone makes assumptions about anything. There's no difference from making assumptions about why a couple are or are not married, to making assumptions about who does most of the cooking in a family.

Yes, the vast majority of SAHP or part-time working parents will be women. But that doesn't mean anyone should assume, on meeting a new family, that the women is the financially less solvent/secure within the couple.

I'm not saying that everyone who isn't married has done so consciously. I'm not saying that there isn't a vast amount of education that still needs to be done so that women don't rely on the imaginary protection of common law marriage. I do think this is a big and important topic.

I think you are confusing generalisations which often have some statistical basis, and 'assumptions'.

And 'patronising' is an emotive reaction. You could just say you don't agree because it doesn't apply to you. To say you feel patronised is sometimes a defensive response and could mean some people would accuse you of protesting too much.

Not my experience at all, hereandthereex. You're talking about the strain on a relationship of taking on a huge amount of debt or just spending a lot, not about the effect of having that legal tie.

The stats are very interesting, pink. Though it is somewhat unsurprising that a foundation called the Marriage Foundation came up with figures that supported marriage

One aspect that would have to be factored into marriage post-DC is exactly what we are discussing here. As a couple gets older, their financial situation undoubtedly changes. Things like IHT thresholds might become applicable. There is currently no way around that other than to get married.

It makes a sort of catch-22 on the reasons to get married.

For example we are not married, and neither of us have any desire to get married. We are happy to go about creating the legal and financial protection for each other the more long-winded way through separate legal agreements and powers of attorney. We are financially equal within our relationship. However, should our situation change for any reason - one of us having to give up work etc, worries about property assets - we would consider getting married if that was the only way of protecting ourselves and our children. But we really, really would not be happy about being forced to sign up for an institution which we personally don't believe in.

some people would accuse you of protesting too much

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, isn't it, really?

Urm what if they don't have a tidy some of money to start again so are you saying women should only marry rich men so they get a nice some to start again

I have a feeling the stats might be way behind the current reality.

And those are not statistics, rather a press release of a 'prediction' from somebody called 'Marriage Foundation' who can hardly be called a disinterested party, who seem to be a one-band lobby group.

OP here again.. wow what a great reaction to the thread ! and I apologise if it seemed a little patronizing or like an 'order' ..'every one having kids should get married'..it was written out of frustration of once again seeing another woman shafted because of a simple lack of information. No I do not believe every one with kids get married, but I would like everyone, especially young women put in possession of the full facts. Then of course they enter into decisions such as children and property with eyes wide open. And at the end of the day if he/she wants children and the other spouse wont marry when the other wishes to, then he/she isn't a good bet for parenthood...however I am REALLY schocked by all the '.I'm all right, I earn more, I'm independent remarks on here.... the VAST majority of women are not in your position, how about some consideration for others..?

Gasp.
Not a problem. My experience, your experience.

Sometimes anecdotal experience trumps stats when underlying behaivour changes faster than the stats are measured.

Reviewing the UK situation for Patch - other contries may vary ....

Marriage gives a modicum of default protection for a woman. It does not guarantee a happy marriage.

Cohabers can achieve the same legally+financially as a marriage but it requires extra legal effort. And, agian, no guarantee of a happy cohab.

I should add, in the area of the Yorkshire I'm from formal/legal marriage is a relative recent thing.

A lot of couples of of my Grandparents generation were neither religously or legally married. A lot could not be bothered, there was a local 'do' to celebrate them shacking up/living over the broom. This was accepted by the village. And there was not a lot of assets to argue over either.

There were still a lot of couples when I was act school with self decalred 'common-in-law' spouse- although no such things exist legally, it was accepted at school and hospitals and other authorities.

Sometimes children come along by surprise before marriage. No biggie, mum should just consider hanging on to a job just in case. This is quite an annoying op