Is there something to be said for couples who don't get married but stay together?

[Mamabooksbabynumber2]

My dp and I aren't married. I have often heard all the pros for getting married and am thinking on reflection if their are any benefits to not getting married.

Such as.. I was thinking if you stay together for say 40 years but you never got married is it perhaps because you want to be together rather than being together because it is easier perhaps than getting a divorce.

Can anyone think of any?

Dp thinks marriage doesn't mean anythi g and he would feel suffocated to be trapped legally as he hates the idea of not being independent and being bound.

That, tbh, would have my spidey senses tingling. There are absolutely people who don't want to marry for whatever reason, but who are still extremely committed to their partner. And those relationships can be really solid. He, however, doesn't sound like he's one of these people. It would worry me if my partner set such store on not feeling committed to me. Especially if I were planning to have a child with them!

I do also think you could do with thinking about your feelings on marriage as a way of ensuring lifetime security. Much as I sympathise with you, it's not. People get divorced all the time. Married couples are less likely to split up than unmarried (with some caveats) so I guess if you're looking for the statistically more secure option it's marriage, but a very significant minority of marriages end in divorce. Marrying won't insulate you from the possibility of being left again. So even if he does agree to get married, you will have to work through his feelings of not wanting to feel tied down together.

Anyway with all this in mind, I'm not saying don't have a baby, but approach with caution and ensure you're not in a position where you have to rely on someone who's made zero legal commitment to you. Because he hasn't.

You say you're going back for 4 days- ok. What about him? Will this leave you worse off? Is that going to be reflected in your contribution to bills? What about savings? You're renting- so is the plan to purchase eventually? You will need to think about who'll have what shares, in whose name the deposit savings will be until then.

I work 4 days atm as I'm about to finish my degree.

I never really thought before about the protection marriage gives to the woman.

My mum has been with her partner for 20 years, was married to my father for 19. Shotgun wedding when she was 16. She has no desire to marry her partner as they consider themselves already married.

She is very happy as they are.

They might consider themselves already married, the law most certainly doesn't. Have they taken legal advice to best protect themselves? You mention a 19 year marriage so hopefully she's divorced! Just asking because I have seen situations like this go tits up too many times. If they're well protected as well as happy, fair enough and more power to them.

It's not so much to the woman OP as to the lower earner/asset holder. Statistically more likely to be the woman but not always. There are women who don't want to get married because they have assets they don't want their poorer male partner having a claim on. So if for example you'll still have more money doing 4 days than DP does after 5, marriage would arguably favour him more.

It matters less when you have no assets, but you will need to think about an equitable way to progress towards them, iyswim. So if for example you drop your hours and he doesn't, so he can save towards a deposit and you can't, how is this going to be addressed?

Good news about the degree anyway. Will you be staying in the same job then?

Thank you for giving me a reality chexl. It's been very helpful. I've decided that I will start putting money in to savings to protect myself as well as ensuring we both have wills and life insurance. We did split up over 2 years ago for a couple of months and whilst he did help financially for a cohplenof months I was f**ked as I had to move out as it was too expensive to love there and I had no money for a deposit.

I have a dc1 from previous relationship who is 7. So I've always been financially independent as I can be. Me and dp lived together from 3 years into relationship and r now together a total of 7 years. If he doesn't want to get married then I feel I have to make financial provisions to protect myself just incase and I'm starting to think I've been quite stupid in not having any savings.
We earn roughly the same and split what's left over to do whatever we want with and I think I will start saving some of.mine.

We do want to have another child, he did take alot of persuading. But he is happy to have one now.

Good to hear you are taking steps. You don't want to fuck up your earning ability and then one day, if one of you decides to end it, be left financially up the creek. People can and do have successful and long term unions without getting married but you need to go about it carefully.

Do you think he would change his mind if he were to learn that marriage does change a lot of things? Ie, the legalities?

When you are young and healthy it's hard to imagine a situation when you are unable to work and be financially independent. What would happen if you have a child who needs extra care (meaning that you can't return to work full time)? How about if you become ill in the future and can't work? Does your DP currently earn more than you? You would have much more financial protection with a divorce. Unless you are a much higher earner than DP or likely to be independently wealthy in the future, I would advise you not to ttc without being married. I think your DP isn't fully committed to you if he knows marriage is important to you and won't even consider it to look after the future mother of his child.

I would have been quite happy to stay unmarried but my DH said if I wanted kids we needed to be married. So married we are. To be fair marriage doesn't fair that well in my family..... Anyway we have now been married 10 years.

My dad has been with his partner for 30 years and my aunt has been with hers for around 20 years.... Neither are married and as my dad is not leaving his assets to his partner and they don't have kids together it doesn't make much difference.

It is when the terrible happens that suddenly having hundreds of years of laws behind you that stops the terrible becoming even worse.

This is so well put. Having seen friends suddenly bereaved I've been amazed at the difference being married has made. In one case, they were abroad and my friend couldn't even organise for the body to come home, her dp's parents had to fly out.

It's one of those things which might not seen particularly useful until the point when it's indispensable.

Yes, dying abroad can be a huge issue. You can have all the wills, insurance and NOKs you want, it make sod all difference in some countries if you're not married. Obviously not everyone travels though.

Also another thing for you both to consider OP- the impact marriage has on birth certificates and name choosing.

If you're married, your husband is legally considered the father of any child born to you. Either of you can register the birth with just the one of you there, and put both names on. If you're not married, only you can register the birth and his name can only go on the birth certificate if both of you agree to it. This also basically means you get final right of veto on the name, whereas if you're married and can't agree, he can just go and register the birth before you do and have his choice that way, if he wants.

Additionally, and probably more importantly, if you're not married he doesn't have parental responsibility if his name isn't on the birth certificate. As you get to stop him from being on it if you want, by not marrying you he's basically reliant on you to allow him this. The only way he could get parental responsibility otherwise is to apply to a court.

Again all of this can be good or bad depending on your view. But by not getting married, he has a lot less control wrt children at least initially, and by being married you effectively cede some of yours. Up to you both how you feel about that of course.

Yes, there is something to be said about those couples who stay together, but do not get married. In such arrangements, it is invariably the woman who is losing out and is at a disadvantage. I get why your DP does not want to be married as that will put legal responsibilities on him that can be enforced in a court of law, rather than walking away scott free when he has had enough of you. And that can happen at any moment, for example when you are in your mid-fifties and it is not that easy to start all over again.

Nobody can ensure against every eventuality. A marriage certificate is not proof of good character and kind heart . BUT it is never the man in the relationship who loses out in such an arrangement. It will be you should anything happen.

I would strongly advise seeing a solicitor to get a clear picture of your rights and responsibilities re. cohabiting partners vs married couple scenario. You are already disadvantaging yourself by living with the man effectively being his wife and doing the wifework. When your second child comes along you will find it harder keeping your career and it will likely be you to give that promotion a pass or take time off for your kids' doctors appointments/ parents evening.

Marriage is not a fair set-up by any means, but it is fair-er for the woman than having no legal protection at all.

Think carefully and communicate your point of view to your DP clearly. Your interests are no less worthy or important than his. Remember that at all times.

For me personally - being together w/o being married is fine.
However, and there is a big however - that is all when it’s only two of you. And when things are straight-forward - you don’t move countries, and no one sacrifices anything - career-wise or financially.

Once there are children - I think the protection of marriage is important. At this in the UK - where common-law marriage is not recognised.
I would never have children with someone who told me - he doesn’t believe in marriage, but wants to have a child with me.

Children - inevitable require one of the partners to scale back. Even if temporarily - and then it’s hard to get back properly. Someone has to take time off when kids are ill, and re-focus in the kid in the medium term.

Relationships - even great ones - change. And stuff happens.
The person who takes a step back in their career needs to be protected.
Marriage gives that.

Now that I am done with child bearing, if I get divorced - I can happily date and co-habit.

Dp thinks marriage doesn't mean anythi g and he would feel suffocated to be trapped legally as he hates the idea of not being independent and being bound. I know he may get flamed for this but I understand him and his personality, and that he doesn't like to feel tied down.

OP, you can also frame the above as: Do I want to take care of my partner and the mother of my children? Do I want to put rock-solid provisions in place to ensure they will be looked after financially if anything happens to me? Do I want to ensure they have the house to live in and inherit my assets should I die? Getting legally married is about taking care of somebody who is important to you in the financial and legal sense. Yes, you can put lots and lots of alternative provisions in place to resemble those of marriage. However these provisions can be changed easily without the other party knowing, while the status of the marriage will remain as long as that marriage continues.

I would never have a child with someone and remain unmarried unless I had significantly more assets and continued earning capacity.

I despair at the number of women who give up careers at 20-something to have children and remain unmarried.

They invariably get shafted 20 years later when their DPs are earning multiples of their 20-something wage and suddenly find their 20-something career minded colleague the most attractive thing in the world.

*I would never have a child with someone and remain unmarried unless I had significantly more assets and continued earning capacity.

I despair at the number of women who give up careers at 20-something to have children and remain unmarried*

^ this

The thing that changed me from being a 'wild child, can't be tied down' into a responsible partner who agreed to get married, was firstly finding a partner I felt I could really trust and then, and only then, the prospect of the survivor having to pay inheritance tax to just remain in our jointly owned, but as tenants in common, house.

Children - inevitable require one of the partners to scale back. Even if temporarily - and then it’s hard to get back properly. Someone has to take time off when kids are ill, and re-focus in the kid in the medium term

This. The degree to which having a child changes the trajectory of one's earning capacity is difficult to see when one is young. It is a series of tiny decisions. Who is committed to picking the child at a set time, and who can stay and work on a high priority project? Who can travel with work? Who is then more likely to get the raise and promotions?

I honestly couldn't see it clearly until I was in my 40s. It was little decisions that at the time made sense and seemed reasonable, but how they all added up over 2 decades is mindboggling.

I agree with the others that you'd be a fool to have a child in the UK with someone who is unwilling to marry you. It means you are making a very large gamble with your financial future.

It's sad to me that so many things that should have helped liberate women have managed to be turned around to just make them more vulnerable.

I assume that one party (usually but not always the man because they are generally paid more and disadvantaged less by parenthood and career breaks and so on) is too selfish cute to consider themselves one half of a functioning economic unit/family. One party is more afraid of losing assets than they are of losing their other half. Perhaps they still wonder if they'll meet somebody better one day, they need to be free for when that happens. Lot of men think Jennifer Lawrence is going to knock on the door and say how about it.

''Dp thinks marriage doesn't mean anythi g and he would feel suffocated to be trapped legally as he hates the idea of not being independent and being bound. I know he may get flamed for this but I understand him and his personality, and that he doesn't like to feel tied down.''

Ha, my x would uttered this kind of nonsense. While he manipulated me in to giving up my job and then holding it against me that I was financially dependent. Luckily I left rather than put up with it. That gave him. the. shock. of. his. life. Which is hilarious as I warned him repeatedly that the situation wasn't acceptable to me, and still he was shocked when I left. I've flourished financially. It wasn't easy, it certainly was not easy. I had five years of saving like my life depended on it and even now I don't have loads of disposable income but I have my own house and job, oh, and a small tiny pension. If I were still with him I'd have NOTHING.

Trouble is, it’s fine all the time you have the right legal agreements in place, but what happens when it all goes tits up and he’s got rid of all those protections? He doesn’t even have to tell you he’s changing his will it the beneficiary of his life insurance.

We do want to have another child, he did take alot of persuading. But he is happy to have one now.

He took a lot of persuading to have a child with you? He doesn't want to marry you? You have already split up with him once and you found it hard to manage financially

If I were you I would be very seriously asking myself why I wanted to stay with this man.

is your desire for a second child making you look at this relationship through rose tinted glasses?

Actually yeah, that's a bit of a red flag too. I don't see the commitment markers in this one OP, sorry. If you're going to proceed, do so with that in mind.

I think its fine to not get married if thats what both partners want. I don't think its the same if one partner wants to get married and the other doesn't, especially with children involved due to the financial implications usually for the mother. Some of what you have said sounds like massive alarm bells would be ringing for me

DH and I weighed up the option of getting married years ago. At the time I was the higher earner, I already had equity in a house and I had a good inheritance whereas DH was a new graduate with no assets or inheritance. Financially, at the time it made marriage in DHs favour but we decided we wanted to get married. Since having DC1 I have had to give up work so being married has given me financial protection.

Do look seriously at lasting powers of attorney. You need one for health and a separate one for property (that includes money and all assets). These give each of you the ability to exercise control over the other's assets or health in the event of incapacity. You can download the template forms from the office of public guardian's website so you can look over them together. I'm thinking specifically about the health one to be honest. You will never be each other's next of kin in the eyes of the law so if one of you needs to make care decisions in a worst case scenario then this will let you do that.

Make sure you understand each other's pension schemes. A lot of pension schemes recognise cohabiting partners but do check what will happen if one of you dies. I think that where pensions have been accrued under a previous employer then the trustees have been known to refuse to pay out to a cohabiting partner.

Inheritance tax - £325k is the current limit. A lot of people coming up to retirement would hit this with the value of their house. You can inherit from a spouse without paying inheritance tax and then the final beneficiaries would enjoy the combined allowance of £650k. When working out your life insurance policy value it should cover potential tax liabilities. Do regular 'audits' too so that if you do buy a house together your policy is adjusted accordingly in terms of payout.

It will be interesting to see how open-minded he is to any of this!

I think the only assumption I’d make about a long term unmarried couple is that they didn’t have enough assets to care about IHT.