Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
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

Original poster

if you are going to be a SAHM or rely on partners income.. please please get married before agreeing to children.

185 replies

Marilynsbigsister · 28/11/2015 21:19

I don't think I have ever seen a week like it on MN for women getting shafted by partners and father of their children. At least 4 or 5 threads on here at the moment from women left without homes and losing their way of life because their 'partners' have decided they want out. In the latest thread, the lady in question has been living together for 30yrs and will leave with only cm for two of their four children..(the others are over 18) . He has created a successful business while she has bought up a family. This is not recognised by the courts as they are not married.. Please please DO NOT have children with a man who doesn't respect you enough to marry, especially if you intend to stay home to raise baby or will only earn a part time wage and property is owned by partner... until the law is changed (not before time)

OP posts:
Itisbetternow · 28/11/2015 22:52

It is poorly worded. We know what the OP is saying. People, men and women need to financially protect themselves whether they are married or not. Except the legalities of marriage slightly protect the sahp or lower earner more than not being married.

Obviously there are people who will avoid getting married for that very reason - so that they don't have to share their assets when the relationship breaks down.

WaitrosePigeon · 28/11/2015 22:53

Does anyone know why partners are not given the same protection as married couples? Is the law going to change?

Itisbetternow · 28/11/2015 22:55

I would imagine it is too complicated. With a marriage there is evidence as to when the legal partnership was established. Also lot of influence from the churches on the government perhaps? Not saying either of those are right though!

Lollipopgirl8 · 28/11/2015 22:56

Yeah law needs to change to be honest as I think people are actually avoiding marriage for these reasons!

Itisbetternow · 28/11/2015 22:58

If there is no Legal reason for getting married would anyone bother? Love doesn't need a marriage certificate. Marriage was created to protect or control women deoending on your stance.

LillianGish · 28/11/2015 23:06

The reason partners are not given the same protection as married couple is because they have chosen not to get married - it's as simple as that. No one has to get married and everyone should be free not to be married if they choose not to be.

ImperialBlether · 28/11/2015 23:07

I'm not sure about changing the law, though. There is a way to ensure fairness and it's marriage.

IPityThePontipines · 28/11/2015 23:09

Marriage is a legal contract that it is very clear that both parties have chosen to enter into.

A law saying "You live under the same roof and are romantically involved, therefore you have all the legal status of marriage" could easily be a Cocklodgers' Charter and it essentially means all cohabitating couples will be treated as if they were married, regardless of what they wish.

Our civil wedding was two half hour appointments and £70. Marriage must be one of the cheapest legal contracts you can obtain, yet because people are fixated on The Big Wedding, they put it off until it's too late.

Lollipopgirl8 · 28/11/2015 23:11

I think it only ensures fairness for the person who has taken a step back

There is no way of knowing if the wage earner would still be able to earn that wage if they had no partner and kids

HirplesWithHaggis · 28/11/2015 23:13

Waitrose, how would you define a "partner" rather than a spouse? After five, ten, thirty years living together? After dc are born?

timelytess · 28/11/2015 23:13

ultimately this is a plea, for a women to become better educated and to know their rights (or lack of them) should it all go wrong
Save your breath and heartache, OP. I've been begging them for years, here and in other places, to do things the old-fashioned way. They just won't listen. Its their choice.

Lollipopgirl8 · 28/11/2015 23:16

Some people put it off ahem moi because they are possibly unsure of that person which begs the question why they are in the relationship in the first place! I would say just don't bring kids into it as I see that as the only reason why one would take a step back

I don't think people should run and get married because it might be too late... It's a life long contract and it's not always about having a "big day"

not all women face doom and gloom just because they are getting older

This is probably why so many marriages end in divorce... The key is to protect yourself have your own thing and don't ever give it up for anyone

IPityThePontipines · 28/11/2015 23:27

Easy to say "don't give up your job for anyone", but for many people the cost of child care outweighs their wages, their work might not be family friendly, they might not want to work full time when they have young children...

ImperialBlether · 28/11/2015 23:34

So then get married, IPity.

Lollipopgirl8 · 28/11/2015 23:40

I get that but I still think you could be screwed if your husband left you and he wasn't earning very much in the first place

Lollipopgirl8 · 28/11/2015 23:46

As I've said a lot of my friends have had kids and were quick to come back to work after mat leave
They don't want to jeopardise their careers the only thing is most are part time working 3-4 days a week as they still want to finish their training

yet I know their husbands are on good salaries at least 80K a year (well according to recent stats on UK wages!)

IPityThePontipines · 28/11/2015 23:47

Imperial, did you miss the part where I said my civil wedding cost £70?

I was responding to lollipops post about not needing to get married if you carry on working full time.

ImperialBlether · 29/11/2015 00:05

Mine did too, IPity. I did miss you saying it, but I know the cost of a wedding!

For many women they work full time but not at the same level they were at before. You see so many women doing jobs they wouldn't have done prior to having children, because time is more important to them. If they don't marry and split up, though, the man will often keep his higher paid job, his bigger pension etc and the woman is left with the job she did for convenience for the family.

Yes, there might be a relatively few women who have it sorted, but the posts on MN are devastating as you watch women who've been with men for years and years, supported their careers, taken on lower level jobs with poor or no pensions, etc, realise exactly what happens when they split up.

KeepOnMoving1 · 29/11/2015 00:06

Completely agree with the op. You have a responsibility to yourself and going along and having a good few kids and only finally waking up when it's too late is just stupid.

IPityThePontipines · 29/11/2015 00:21

Imperial - I think we're in agreement here, I am definitely in the pro-marriage as a legal protection camp.

Not mentioned yet, but being married is also of huge benefit if your spouse dies. There's a very well known MN thread where the OP hadn't married, her partner died and the resulting financial mess was very painful to resolve.

5madthings · 29/11/2015 00:25

We had the cheapest ceremony we good for our wedding this year. The interviews at registry before we could get married wrre £35 each so £70 and a weekday wedding was £150? I think or it may have been a bit more.

We didn't get married before because we didn't want to, but we had made sure we had proper legal and financial protection for me and the children. Getting married for us was about having a day for us, the children, family and frirnds. To celebrate the last 17 years and the amazing family we have. We would have had a civil partnership had they been allowed.

There is nothing wrong with having kids when not married as long as you understand the legalities and make sure you are protected.

I think the problem is when people don't realise the issues,do nothing to sort out finances, wills etc and then if it all goes tits up they can find themselves screwed. Of course is these people could be grown ups and agree to put the welfare of any children first you would hope the parents would want to make sure they were supported and provided for. Sadly things don't always end well and even with a marriage you can get screwed over.

iminshock · 29/11/2015 01:18

Far too simplistic.
I out earned my kids' dad by a mile. I owned my house .
I should have married him...er....why ? So he could claim half when we split ? ( which we did ) . It's rarely in the interest of a higher earner to marry. Applies to men and women equally

iminshock · 29/11/2015 01:20

If " in case we split I will be financially better off" is your reason, the reverse is EXACTLY why your partner might NOT want to marry you.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

Joysmum · 29/11/2015 02:51

Marriage makes it easier, it is the simplest way but you can sort financial and legal stuff without being married

Yes you can, but at any point your partner can also change wills and life insurance etc without your knowledge, or when you split so you don't have any claim in retrospect.

ChippyOikInAWowGuna · 29/11/2015 03:51

yes. haven't read the thread but agree with op. I gave away 7 years of my life to a man who just took and wouldn't give and when I finally realised I had to walk away (with nothing obviously) i had two small dependants. And he was angry that I left him!! so he wouldn't pay maintenance for about five years