Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

What would you do if the father of your child would not marry you?

249 replies

AvocadoLime · 21/04/2015 21:04

NCed for this because people I know use MN.

DP and I have been together for 5 years, living together for 4. We rent a house, and have a seven month old son together. DS was a surprise pregnancy after a contraceptive failure, but very much loved and wanted.

I'll be upfront here, I really want to get married. My reasons are:

-I want financial protection for DS and myself. DP is carrying on in his career, I did not have a career established when DS was born, just a degree (I am younger than him) and I am currently doing a course to become a childminder when my MA runs out so that I can work and be with DS (makes sense for childcare reasons, and I want to be at home with him if I can). His earnings will likely be much higher than mine in, say, 5 years time because I will be taking responsibility for most of DS's care. I know people say that it is not romantic to marry for financial reasons, but I have DS to look out for now as well as myself so I feel I need to be pragmatic for his sake.

-There is a chance that DP could get a job outside of the EU one day because of the type of work he does. What then? We may have to live on different continents. He seems to avoid talking about this scenario ("well, we'll talk about that if it ever happens").

-Other areas of legal recognition, if one of us gets sick or dies. We would not be the others next of kin in hospital, we would not be in charge of each other's funeral arrangements and we would not be able to leave things to each other without getting hit by inheritance tax like a married couple.

-I want social recognition that we are a family, both for myself and DS. Currently DS has my last name, I would like us to all have the same name. I don't know what I'll tell DS when he's older about why his parents aren't married like everyone else's, and I certainly don't want him to worry about family stability if it can be avoided. I know that it works for some families who stay unmarried and I'm not trying to be disrespectful towards them, because my issue here most likely comes from the fact that I feel really quite humiliated that the man whose child I have carried and have lived together in a relationship for years does not want to marry me.

-Sentimental reasons. I always imagined that I would get married, and I want to on a deep level. It doesn't have to be a big wedding, we could elope abroad or whatever I'm not bothered, but I feel like it's something I would really regret on my deathbed if I never got married. Like I said above, I feel humiliated that he won't marry me. I really hate saying "my boyfriend", or "my partner". It feels like our relationship is not serious. I even avoid saying "DP" where I can when I am on Mumsnet! I know that sounds a bit silly, but I just feel a huge gut dislike of it and I can't help it.

-A nagging concern I have that the main reason he does not want to get married is to keep me disposable. He refutes this, but one of his reasons for not wanting to get married is that getting divorced is so long and ugly so I feel that this is a reason, he just does not like it being worded back to him so obviously.

(Am I missing any other important reasons? Genuine question).

Although he has made intermittent noises that he is considering it, he does not really want to get married. His reasons are:

-He has bad experiences of marriage. His parents went through a very nasty divorce when he was 10, he was manipulated by one parent into making claims about the other and he was left quite scarred by the experience. He also got married himself in his 20s and got divorced 7 years later. He says that the relationship went downhill straight away after getting married, although they had never lived together before getting married so I don't think that getting married was the only issue there. I try to be as sympathetic towards his past as I can but I also feel uncomfortable that he has lumped me and his ex into one category and assumes it would be the same with me.

-On a, well, philosophical level, I suppose, he says he does not like the concept of a marriage contract. He says that if you love each other then you should not have to have your relationship 'written into law', like you are commodities that belong to one another. He says it would be against his principals to get married.

-Divorce is long and ugly.

-He says he is happy with our relationship the way it is, and he thinks that if we got married we may become complacent toward trying to maintain it.

-He says he would be far less happy being married than I would be to not be married, though I don't see how he could quantify that quite so easily, especially since I tend to bury my negative feelings a lot and have a breezy exterior, whereas he is not like that at all.

(I have noticed on threads like this people always ask if it is the actual wedding ceremony he objects to - this is not DP's issue, he is concerned with being married, not getting married).

Anyway, we have hit upon a stalemate, basically. I don't really know what to do or how to feel about this. Sometimes I feel really quite resentful about him not wanting to get married and suspicious of his motives, and I consider whether or not our relationship has a future. On the other hand, we do have a good relationship (well, apart from this aspect of it which makes me quite unhappy IYSWIM), and I would want our DS to grow up in a two-parent household if possible, I would feel terribly guilty I think for taking that away from him unless there were any major relationship problems like abuse or cheating. Can I have some thoughts? What would you do in this situation? I probably just need to talk through my feelings as much as anything.

I wish there was something I could say to change his mind (suggestions?) but it's probably unlikely if I'm realistic.

Please don't have a go at me, I'm feeling a bit sad about all of this.

OP posts:
Hakluyt · 23/04/2015 11:41

"Sorry - I should have made myself clear - I think it's wrong of EITHER A MAN OR A WOMAN to expect the perks of marriage without getting married."

So are you telling me my relationship is "wrong"?

Petal02 · 23/04/2015 11:45

Its wrong if the expectations of one party are making the other person unhappy. If everyone's happy then that's fine!

Only1scoop · 23/04/2015 11:46

I expect all the 'perks' of a marriage with my long term dp whom I have a dc with.

That is why we have ensured we both have said 'perks' horrible term Confused whilst not wanting to actually marry.

gildedcage · 23/04/2015 11:50

If neither party want it where's the problem? ?

If there is inequity whereby one party does then clearly there is an issue. But I believe what a few of us are saying is that if marriage is important to you then living as though you are married won't cut the mustard.

It's only common sense to set your own stall out as to your expectations before getting financially entangled or having children. I believe this was the premise of the previous posters, including myself, who said I wouldn't live together etc pre marriage.

If you are happy as you are then that's fine but the OP isn't.

MaebyF · 23/04/2015 11:52

Yes, it's wrong if one partner is unhappy with the set up, as the OP clearly is.

But if both parties are unhappy, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with not expecting perks and commitment without a ceremony.

Hakluyt · 23/04/2015 11:52

"Its wrong if the expectations of one party are making the other person unhappy. If everyone's happy then that's fine!"

So the wishes of the person not wanting to be married don't count?

TheMagnificientFour · 23/04/2015 11:53

Actually, just as much as I agree with Gray that you don't have to be married to show your commitment (I've always thought that having a dc together was bigger sign of commitment for example), I also agree with Petal.

Living as partners works very well if both partners have similar levels of income so both are able to partcipate in the run of the house and get similar levels of savings, assets etc... Both are working and carry on developing their career (as if single and wo children...)
When it doesn't work is when one partner, in this case the OP, is staying at home to raise a or several dcs. When that partner is changing her career to 'fit' with being a SAHM or take on most if not all the childcare responsibilities whilst the other partner carries on with a bigger income, bigger savings and most impoortantly bigger career progression.
THAT is imo having your cake and eating it. It's wanting to get all the nice side of having a 1950s type of organisation (SAHM with all its perks for the WOHP) whilst taking no risk or responsibilities whatsoever (ie not sharing the income, the growing assets or the growing wage coming from having more experience at work).

TheMagnificientFour · 23/04/2015 11:56

Of course it only addresses the financial side of the issue which can be adressed but will probably be coming as a shock for her partner.

On a emotional pov, if being married is so important for you, then it's probably better to discuss that before having a dc. Otherwise, it is clear that one of the partner will get very upset because neither of them are right or wrong for wanting to be married (or not).
There is win-win situation at that level. Only arrangements that can solve some of the financial issues associated with not being married.

MaebyF · 23/04/2015 11:56

Definitely, Magnificent. Most of the time on MN I see this debate worded as "don't have DC without getting married" when it reality it is "don't become a SAHP or financially reliant on your partner without getting married".

There is something about the opinion that women are in a dangerous position by having kids without being married that makes me a bit sad, as it seems to operate from the position that by default a woman screws up her career and her life by having children. I do understand that in the majority of cases if one parent does stop working or go part-time it is more often than not the woman - but there's something about the assumption that a woman will suffer as a independent financial or legal body by having children that makes me sad.

gildedcage · 23/04/2015 12:00

Exactly magnificent!

No one's feelings should supercede the other's. There needs to be honesty from the outset as to respective intentions.

Whatever way you look at it being married wont stop people having affairs, behaving badly etc but it does give you some legal standing if things happen. And as I've said previously, I strenuously believe, married or not, women need to protect their own financial security.

Offred · 23/04/2015 12:32

I'm another one who thinks the marriage is a little immaterial and the issue is being a SAHM.

You have a child and you aren't married. This means the family needs to be set up so that both adults are as equal as possible and if that isn't possible then you would be better being single op.

Jackieharris · 23/04/2015 12:40

It's all very well for all these posters wading in and saying you should discuss this before having dc but 1 in 4 pregnancies are unplanned! Should they all have abortions?

A huge minority of women will find themselves in this situation (unmarried mums). Some are happy. Some want to get married. There's really an awful lot of luck in how things pan out.

Hakluyt · 23/04/2015 12:59

So what if both people want to be together, but one wants to be married and the other doesn't? Who should get their way?

MaebyF · 23/04/2015 13:04

That's a hugely difficult situation, Hakluyt. I do kind of agree with what you said earlier about the status quo winning, but I think for me it would come down to whoever felt strongest about it. Which is a very difficult thing to work out, I appreciate. I suppose maybe if one person felt it was an absolute dealbreaker?

I know in our relationship, while we are consciously not married I think I was 80% against marriage, DP is 99% against marriage. However he knows that if I feel after a second DC that I am in a weaker financial position, then I want to get married. It would go against most of what he feels and believes but in that situation he would give way to my feelings, because those feelings are about safety and security.

MerryMarigold · 23/04/2015 13:06

Hakluyt, I think you have to look at the reasons why both people want those things. Eg. if person A really wants to get married, because they feel it will 'endorse' the relationship and show a deeper commitment to the other, but person B doesn't want to get married because they don't feel it shows a deeper commitment and it doesn't mean the same thing to them, then I think they should get married. This is because person B doesn't really have anything to lose (and nothing to gain either) whereas for person A not to get married, they are losing something.

GoatsDoRoam · 23/04/2015 13:06

So what if both people want to be together, but one wants to be married and the other doesn't? Who should get their way?

If there are no children involved, then it's an incompatibility that can only be resolved by one of the two capitulating, or the pair splitting.

Once children are involved, it's no longer about personal preference. It's about legal and financial safeguards.

Hakluyt · 23/04/2015 13:10

Imagine that there are children, and all the legal side has been sorted out. Who wins then?

MerryMarigold · 23/04/2015 13:12

I don't think it's a contest, and if you see things in that way, it's difficult for a relationship to work. It's about assessing who has the most to gain/ or lose. It's also about the person who wants to get married accepting that the future spouse is doing it for them and not because they are passionate about marriage. You cannot make yourself WANT to get married, but you can want it because you know it means an incredible amount to your partner.

PoshPenny · 23/04/2015 13:16

OP if I was in your position I would pack up and leave with the baby. Then whatever you achieved from that point would be yours and yours alone without having to be dependent on your partner for whatever crumbs he might care to give you. I think everything changes when you have a baby together. I've seen too many unmarried partnerships collapse over the years, and the woman left with the kids and no money and entitled to very little because they weren't married. I know not all men behave this way. Personally I think it's easier to walk away when you're not married than it is when you are and there is all the legal disentanglement to go through at great cost, so I don't quite understand where he's coming from there. I wish you the best of luck, it would destroy me if the father of our baby didnt want to marry me. I myself had a shotgun wedding nearly 23 years ago...

TheMagnificientFour · 23/04/2015 13:23

Why does ot have to be about winning Confused? I though a marriage/partnership was about finding solutions that work well for both.

If you are in a relationship where you are striving to be the one 'winning' then I think you are in the wrong relationship.

I agree about looking at whioch one has the most to 'loose' and which one is the strongest in their beliefs about marriage etc..
And that might mean just keeping the status quo.

If keeping the status quo means one person is just brushing the issue under the carpet or has to keep quiet to keep the peace and the relationship, then it's wrong.

The reality Hakluyt is that there is no right answer to that question either before or after you ahve dcs. Just the 'best' answer for that particular couple at that particular time (and yes it could change)

GoatsDoRoam · 23/04/2015 13:25

"Who wins?" Confused

What an incomprehensible approach to partnership.

Hakluyt · 23/04/2015 13:31

Sorry- the wins was supposed to be "wins"!

MaebyF · 23/04/2015 14:06

There's no "winning" about it.

It's about sitting down as a couple and understanding each other's reasons for and against marriage. It's about trying to find a compromise that works for both parties. If there isn't a compromise, then it falls into the same category as anything else that people can't agree on within a relationship, whether it's who does the housework or how much sex they have.

LadyCatherineDeTurd · 23/04/2015 14:23

Those of you who think you have the 'perks' of marriage without being married- you don't. Simply because they can't all be replicated. It's fair enough to say you don't need them, don't want them, see them as negatives rather than perks, feel they're outweighed by not being married etc. But be clear that you don't have them. It's also a bit of a stretch to say 95% of the financial and legal aspects can be fixed, as a pp claims upthread. You simply can't 'fix' the ability to pass unused IHT allowance to a spouse with no trouble from HMRC, to pass some of your unused personal allowance to a spouse, to receive widows pension if your spouse dies while you have young children, to challenge a will making no provision for you if a spouse unilaterally revokes it on the same terms you could if married. These form a significant percentage of marital 'perks', more than 5%.

Nobody's relationship is better or worse than anyone else's because of marital status. But people need to not pretend that the 'perks' of marriage can be replicated outside it. The issue is whether you want them, not whether you can get them in an alternative way- you can't.

MaebyF · 23/04/2015 14:31

The issue is whether you want them

Exactly.

And each couple can decide whether they want them or not.