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

[Marilynsbigsister]

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)

Wow thought marriage was for love clearly not!
No wonder divorce rate is so high

Lollipop
Of course marriage is a contract, which is why so many people men say it's not necessary. Because they love each other and it's just a piece of paper, it won't make a difference. Until the higher earner decides to bugger off.

The divorce rate is so high because women are much more self sufficient and there's less social pressure to stay married. Most people feel they leave their abusive, cheating, unloving partners, which was not so easy a few decades ago.

I have scanned this thread so apologies if this has been covered.

Marriage makes you next of kin in terms of medical care. As I am getting older so medical stuff is happening to my contemporaries. How much more complicated if you as partner are not next of kin but their parents are.

I saw one particularly sad family via the waiting room for intensive care. It is the last added complication that you need at that time.

I two friends that have married men that have very few assets and these are marriages where there will be no DC as they are both over 50. One is a second marriage and the other is a first in these circumstances there is no way I would have married. I think one friend was quite crackers marrying as she is really quite wealthy and he brought nothing asset wise to the table.

Being a SAHP is different though as child rearing. I always worked but ended up ill and disabled. I had paid in to a pension for 25 years and have been awarded that so still have my own income though I'm now SAH. Taking that pension out when I was 21 was the best decision unbeknown to me at the time that I ever made.

My Mother did drum in to all of us to never rely on a mans earnings "don't go and have to beg for money for sanitary towels" were her exact words. She had six DC and always worked.

That's a good (but sad) point, Enas. I've seen it said on similar threads before that most hospitals take a common sense approach to this and would talk to the unmarried co-habiting partner of an adult patient about treatment options, rather than their parents or siblings. But that's in the UK - there are places abroad where they might be less accommodating. And then there's the funeral and the inheritance implications. Not everybody's parents and family are reasonable, as any regular on MN knows. You could find your loved one's personal things are not yours to hang onto as mementoes, not to mention finding that you're going to be turfed out of the family home because it's going to his parents/your name isn't on the lease.

"So get your own career! "

Not everyone can have a career Lollipop.

But most people can get a job.

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.

I agree with this, but TBH, divorce should also be easier. (bitter experience)

"But most people can get a job."

Yes of course Lweji, but Lollipop was talking about careers.

Yes, but not getting a job is opting out of any career. If you hold on to a job you have a much better chance to progress.

Wow thought marriage was for love clearly not!

The thing is, people do the "for love" part of marriage without the part that gives legal protection. They buy property, live together and have children, all things that would have had to happen after marriage in days gone by.

It's not that marriage isn't "for love" it's just that you can do all that stuff without the legal protection of a marriage.

I think the comments from the high earning women who didn't marry their partners and are relieved about that as they split make the ops point the best of all.

I am the sole earner in my relationship at the moment, for reasons that I'm mostly happy about. The house we live in is legally mine. I am pushing DP to get married (He isn't bothered) as i want him to inherit the house in the event of my death.
I have no intention of breaking up with him, nor he me afaik, but the thought that he could be kicked out of our house with nothing if anything were to happen to me brings me out in a cold sweat. As does the thought that f anything happens to him, it will be his estranged parents and not me who are next of kin and get to decide what happen to him.
I love him, respect him, and want to ensure he'll be protected in the event of things going badly wrong. That's what love is about for me, not a white dress and a fancy day out.

It's not that marriage isn't "for love" it's just that you can do all that stuff without the legal protection of a marriage.

Depends what you mean by 'all that stuff'. You can do some of it, but you can't replicate the exact set of financial and legal provisions offered by marriage outside marriage.

I love him, respect him, and want to ensure he'll be protected in the event of things going badly wrong. That's what love is about for me, not a white dress and a fancy day out.

This is it in a nutshell.

Fanny, I think that was what the post was trying to say. By 'all that stuff', I read it that she meant you can do the 'for love', hearts and flowers stuff as cohabitees, but to get any legal protection you need to get married.

I was never bothered about marriage and neither was DP but it began to make sense to both of us after he was shocked when he tried to register DD and was told only I could do it. Then a good friend separated from an emotionally abusive, alcoholic partner after nearly 30 years and was left couch surfing as she had no rights to the family home. We then looked in to getting a legal contract drawn up to protect each other and give DP rights to be an equal parent and the costs were astronomical. So we decided it would be cheaper to go down the local registry office.(that our low key plans were hi-jacked by family and friends is another story) but now I am a SAHM after the birth of DS it is good to know that we are protected legally as possible.

* I* love him, respect him, and want to ensure he'll be protected in the event of things going badly wrong. That's what love is about for me, not a white dress and a fancy day out.

And in two sentences you have succinctly summed up exactly what I have tried (and failed) to get across in my OP about 'respect'. Shouldn't those words be what everybody feels about the person they have decided to have a child with. ? Both male and female.

I would be suspicious of the partner that was so against it. If it means so little to the "just a piece of paper" brigade why not just do it to keep your partner happy?

I married my military ex before even living together let alone having dc and he knew/I told him that was my stance. NOT because I am a traditionalist but because even at 21 I had seen the consequences of not being married before entangling finances/children.

My friends dad died very unexpectedly when they were very young. Not being married she got nothing, lost the house (his parents inherited and didn't care she and his kids were left homeless), no pension, no life insurance etc. she had mistakenly thought 'common law' was actual law.

A relatives partner was in a terrible car accident leaving him in a vegetative state. Again 'ils' screwed her and kids despite them being together 15 years and 2 dc. They also ignored his wishes to be a donor following having his life support terminated (also against his beliefs).

Mums friend living with a guy 20 years following his split from first wife (NOT ow). Because they weren't married it was easier for his kids from the first marriage to challenge his will and get the house leaving her homeless. House was in his name even though she paid half the mortgage. Again mistakenly thought 'common law' applied. She also thought she'd get some of his pension.

Sahd friend of mine, came downstairs with their toddler son one morning to note 'sorry I can't cope'. Couldn't get hold of her. House in her name as she was the earner. Lost house, nightmare getting maintenance (almost 7 years) as she went down the Se route but also because Csa and benefits people demanded ridiculous amounts of proof that he'd been sahd (that they wouldn't have from a sahm. Sexism works both ways). She then decided after 10 years she wants full residency (whole other thread I know).

I tell people irl and on here to protect themselves financially IMO that inc no joint accounts or debts!

As for those 'well dp would never do that to me/the kids'

Are you really so arrogant as to think affairs/disability/death only happen to bad people?

I can assure you nobody I know that's been through a relationship breakdown ever thought the person they fell in love with could do half the things they do end up doing!

My ex was raised by a single mum and when we were happy he'd actually tell off friends of his that bitched about paying maintenance etc first thing he did when we split? Emptied the joint bank account!! I had a 2 yr old and no income!

Depends what you mean by 'all that stuff'.

Well, if you'd quoted the whole of my post you would have answered your own question.

It's because of the going on about it on mumsnet that I married.

(Well, and other reasons!)

I think it was sensible - under the circs- and I'm glad we did.

I too don't see the problem with getting married.
We lived together for 4 years and got married on the sat, ds1 christened on the sunday and his 1st birthday on the monday. Same church, same vicor.
His comment of "That was quick work" raised a laugh.

I would be suspicious of somebody who didn't want to, especially if they thought it was just a piece of paper. There's nothing to worry about then.

Ok if both people want to get married fine... Gives you protection

If one person doesn't you can't force them but maybe question why they don't especially if it's been a long term relationship

Don't have children with men who are not fit to be fathers better off using a sperm donor.. I have seen a lot of women desperate about bio clock just having kids with anyone then ten years down the line goes tits up wonder why?

These are points I've learned

Op
I completely agree with you.
My ex and I found a house we wanted to buy, and he suggested that to make life easier we should buy this house in his name only, even though I was to go halves with the mortgage and bills as I was working.
I almost agreed to this until my dad told me what a twat I was being intending to pay towards a house that wasn't mine not to and to make sure my name went on those deeds also.

My ex very reluctantly agreed to put it in joint names and fast forward a few years and we had children and I gave up my good job to be a sahm.

Eventually, the man who I thought was the perfect partner and father started shagging about and became a nasty bastard so we split.
As the house went up for sale he was absolutely gutted that I was entitled to my half share and I know that if the house wasn't in my name also, he would've have given a shit as to where his children lived!

I'm so glad I listened to a voice of reason and protected myself financially.

As someone else pointed out, people shouldn't be so naive to think their partners would never stitch them up.