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)

Marriage won't make much of a difference unless they are a very high earner.

Surely the advice should be don't rely on another person and to always ensure you have your own income.

Another poster explained to me what you meant soupdragon, which is fortunate as it wasn't very clearly written.

Can I ask why so many women, who are financially stronger than their partners are seen as clever for refusing to marry and therefore put their assets at risk, while men who do the same with their partners are selfish inconsiderate twats?

Honest question. (But whatever the answer, get married before becoming SAHMs, or even better, do not ever stop being financially independent).

In other cultures, couples get married and make it work (ie. life/children/parenting) but here on the UK it seems to be a real struggle ... Speaks volumes, really

How do you mean, jipjap?

jipjap, I come from one of those cultures where you make it work. The reality is that more marriages last there because most women are SAHMs who couldn't leave the husband no matter how awful he is, because they would not have any money to survive or raise the children on their own.

If divorce is becoming much more common nowadays, it is because more women are keeping their jobs and therefore the freedom to leave if things do not work out.

Haven't read whole thread.

I do think women should know more about their rights before taking that step to move in/ start a family. Just so they go into the situation with their eyes wide open.

I remember having the same conversation with my gf's in our 20's. I said I wouldn't have a family with someone who wouldn't marry me. I was lambasted from all sides. For being cold, unromantic etc etc. I replied that if I was making the commitment of carrying a baby and taking that vast responsibility on. I would only do so with someone who could make a serious commitment to me.

Fast forward 15 years. In the process of divorcing my STBXH. I'm so incredibly grateful I took that view for the sake of our DC's. Sad but true.

I do also think women should try and keep their own source of income. But I equally envy the women who are SAHM's and who gave that implicit lovely trust in their other halves. It must be lovely to feel that way.

Perhaps you just need to learn to read, Fanny.

Helmet it takes too long to explain and I'm tired, sorry

Marriage won't make much of a difference unless they are a very high earner.

It depends on what you consider a very high earner.

But pps have already given lots of reasons for marriage (or a similar contract) to be worth it for all couples.

In other cultures, couples get married and make it work

What other cultures?

Nah soup, you need to improve your writing skills.

Jipjap I too would be interested which cultures?

I'd also be interested in the rates of abuse, dv and murder by spouse in those cultures.

My parents catholic, raised to marry for life and 'work at it'. Father an abusive violent alcoholic mothers life wasted, even her (very observant) father begged her to leave on many occasions!

Always have a way to make a living, even if you don't have to. It's frustrating to see smart women making bad choices, giving up careers, independence and the ability to earn an income for the never never.

Its not just splitting up, as a PP said, it about after death too.

SOme people are bastards after a death, and the idea that a woman could inherit nothing on the death of her partner and then potentially lose her home if her kids, who did inherit under UK law if a parent dies intestate, wanted to sell it. Or her partners brothers/sisters/parents/cousins/nephews/nieces etc....basically anyone with blood connection except her.

I have seen some of the truly horrible things that people will do to each other when they get a sniff of an inheritance.

Never say "Oh X wouldnt do that", because far too many do! Marriage or Civil Partnership really is the only way to be protected in many scenarios.

There was a thread on here a while back where the woman was refusing to divorce her husband but was having a baby with another man. She wouldnt listen when she was told that if she died then her ex would be considered the babys legal father until proved otherwise as she was married to him when she gave birth. I would not have wanted to be her partner in that scenario!

Always have a way to make a living, even if you don't have to. It's frustrating to see smart women making bad choices, giving up careers, independence and the ability to earn an income for the never never.

Surely that advice should include...

Always make sure you dont get ill or disabled
Always make sure that you do not give birth to a child with extra needs
Always make sure that you earn enough so that going to work doesnt create a net loss within the family finances
Always make sure that you do not end up in an abusive relationship

All of the above can and do happen every day. Being married will offer protection to the person who cannot work for whatever reason that may be. Not being married means that they have no protection at all should their OH choose to bugger off.

I have issues with marriage from a feminist POV, but I cannot argue that the best form of protection is marriage.

Not to mention inheritance tax ...

On inheritance of the family home, it is worth saying that there are ways of dealing with this if the house is in joint names through a joint tenancy- then the survivor automatically owns the whole.

If the house is just in one name, or in the name of the deceased, it isn't necessarily even in the control of those who inherit. If the children become bankrupt or have a messy divorce, they may be forced to sell the house out from under their surviving parent.

Advice of top iht litigation barrister this morning when I asked about tax planning for unmarried clients - tell them to get married! All the schemes to minimise iht for unmarried couples under threat from hmrc...

Sorry to be pedantic here, Libraries, but though you are correct that the survivor of a joint tenancy automatically legally owns the whole house, the value of the portion of the house passing to the survivor IS subject to inheritance tax and is counted as part of the deceased's estate for inheritance tax purposes. The only way to avoid inheritance tax on the value of the share passing is, yes, to be passing to a spouse. Just don't want people to think they're covered on that front if they are not married, because they simply aren't . . .

I didn't comment on IHT though. That was the previous poster. I was just talking about actual inheritance. I know there isn't a wizzy tax planning option of using a JT or I wouldn't have spent many hours writing nil rate band discretionary trusts as a trainee lawyer 15 years ago.

Given the thresholds IHT is not an issue for a lot of couples outside those in London or the wealthy. It's very relevant to those people admittedly.

That should have an "(especially on the first death)" in that last paragraph.

I think Jipjab meant cultures where women have to put up or shut up for fear of being ostracised or left destitute. Yes, happy days all round

No problem at all and understood, Libraries, but when I read your post immediately after the previous post, it read to me like you were saying there were ways to deal with IHT in context of inheritance of family home. Perhaps others did too, and I really, really don't want them to be misinformed, because it is very relevant for those in London in particular, as you note (which is where I'm based) and is a frustratingly common misperception.

Oh absolutely. I hadn't actually spotted Kerala's one line post when I posted initially . I was following on from Gladys.