Thread for my DP: why I'm vulnerable unmarried

[Ebonyscrooge]

Can you please comment saying precisely why I am vulberable as an unmarried mother of 2 who works part-time?

-House is jointly owned
-Joint Life insurance
-Pensions to be left to each other

My partner does not see how/why this leaves me still vulnerable.

Thankyou.

If you want a romantic argument for getting married, try this.

When you get married, as far as the law is concerned, what's yours is his and what's his is yours. You are officially a family.

You've made a decision (together, as a family, even though the law doesn't consider you a family) that you will work part-time to support your shared children and his career. This means that by not being married, you are trusting and hoping that everything will work out, and he has a sort of insurance policy against it not working out.

For the man - at least, the higher earning man who doesn't work time and doesn't compromise his career or pension entitlement - getting married is not a financially or legally sensible thing to do. So the reason to do it is because you love the person and want to be considered a family in the eyes of the law. For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health.

Quote the marriage vows at him. That's what it means and that's why it's so important.

What could be more romantic than him agreeing to get married, rather than keeping the door open to ensure an easy exit?

If he won't marry you, will he put several thousand pounds into a bank account in your sole name, sign a document saying that is a gift to you and also contribute towards your pension annually from his own funds?

There are things he can do to make you feel more secure, if he won't do them then yes you do need to re evaluate your job status. Could you look at changing careers?

Ebony, what you're missing is that your care for his DC is what allows your OH to do his many extra responsibilities in his own very stressful job. If you died or became seriously disabled tomorrow he'd have to give up work completely to care for the DC. That or hire people.

You continue so one of us needs to be at home more than the other. Yes, one of you does. Why does it have to be you? And why does he not pay you? You're already paying by sacrificing the salary you'd be earning if you weren't engaged in childcare.

Your OH is exploiting you. Tbh, I would never have had kids unmarried, for the reasons so many have explained. I would never have trusted a man who wasn't eager to marry me.

Op I do understand what you are saying about your job - that’s it’s very stressful and difficult to manage kids as well (I’m guessing you’re a teacher because you say a lot work part time but just a guess). But your partner is working full time. How I see he not stressed out? Is it because he is not doing his fair share of the childcare? Is he doing half?

As lots have said, earning less while being unmarried is what’s making you vulnerable. If you want to work part time because you are choosing a less stressful life, fine. BUt it seems that it’s because you are doing the lions share of the childcare.

And just as per my usual posts, all the post that no “sensible middle class woman” has children out of wedlock is ridiculous misogyny. I did. As the higher earner it benefited me financially (and probably emotionally as it make things administratively easier) on break up. Keep your outdated rubbish to yourself!

If you want to marry and he doesn't (I haven't RTFT, so not sure whether this is the case), then I think he's the one who needs to justify his position, not you.

You both presumably chose to have kids together. How can anyone have enough commitment to a person to do that, but not enough commitment to marry them?

If marriage is minor and unnecessary and unimportant, and doesn't make any difference... then why is so important to avoid doing it, when marrying would make your partner happier?

Yes, your situation does make you more vulnerable than him, and this thread sets out many reasons why. But you shouldn't have to be going to him with reasons to get married. He's the one who needs to try to think of reasons not to.

I would note though, if you are public sector and he is not you may be better off not getting married. Public sector pensions are enormous in comparison to most private sector pensions and could dwarf other assets (depending on where you live - value of house etc). That would mean you would have more assets and marriage would likely be a bad deal for you.

It does make me angry to read about women in similar situations to you, who want to marry their partner (and father of their DC) but whose partner refuses. (I appreciate this may or may not be your own exact situation.)

A no-frills legal ceremony is very cheap and takes about half a day. Probably you would spend more money and time on the average birthday outing. Who wouldn't do that to make their partner significantly happier? Someone who doesn't really care about their partner's feelings, that's who.

My friend was in this situation for years and it made her very unhappy. Now their kids have grown up and he has apparently 'come round' to the idea of marriage. But after all those years she has finally twigged that he just really didn't care about her and her happiness for all that time. Why should she tie herself to that person who has kept her on a string and only just decided that she's 'good enough'? She has the freedom to leave him now and will probably use it.

Why are you trying to convince a man to marry you if he doesn’t want to? You’ve already (presumably) told him you want to get married and that you feel vulnerable as an unmarried mother and the reasons why and he still doesn’t care. He knows how negatively it’s making you feel and he still won’t do it. Why would you want to marry him after that? Men who refuse to marry in these circumstances are almost invariably doing so because they know they’ll be financially better off in the event of a split if they don’t marry you. Personally I wouldn’t want to marry someone who was happy to let me and the kids struggle rather than pay out more.

OP, Please read what Maisypops said. This is a very good summary of the situation and why it is important to be married if your partner needs you to shoulder more than 50% of the remaining work (house/childcare/mental load etc).

For those suggesting that a partner should demand to be paid their salary sacrifice for providing child care when their OH is working. This is could be counter productive. If given the choice between funding the salary sacrifice or market value of child care, the OH may pick the one that is a lower cost to him or her. In other words the partner could be told to go back to work FT and use alternative child care options.

Similarly SAHP or PT working might be the financially viable option for some couples, given the cost of child care. However for others the decision to "salary sacrifice" can result in a loss of overall income for the family if they both worked FT & used child care. Obviously couples are making an informed decision jointly and they knowingly accept the lost income because of the benefits to them as a couple. Unfortunately for some they only realise the implications when they divorce or start to approach retirement. Salary sacrifice in many parts of the country (SE and London particularly) is a risk and does create vulnerability and risk regardless.

The OP also needs to address her career choice if it is incompatible with having children and her MH. This isn't just about marriage and I am not sure a life plan that centres on getting her DP or failing that another future DP to marry her is sustainable or viable.

OP you can't work full time. as he doesn't want to get married then tell him he'll be the one to work part time and not you !

You are raising his children for free so he can earn a proper wage, but if he decides to fuck off that loss is urs alone.
Selfish arsehole i wouldnr be able to shag someone who thought i wasnt worth marriage.
Poor kids, he doesnt care enough bout their mum to make sure shes secure to be their mum.

I don't know if anyone's got the right to complain that "get married" is antiquated and out-of-touch, if their alternative is "be richer".

OP if you split up you'd have to work FT and care for children unless he dropped his hours. You'd have no compensation for the time you've been PT.

Must really hurtful for you

Is he resisting because you really want a wedding rather than a marriage? Are you scaring him with bridezilla talk of castles and alpacas and table plans?

Or will you be happy to nip to the registry office next Tuesday with a couple of witnesses you drag off the street because it is purely for your security?

The only guarantee is your share in the house. The promise of pensions means nothing and he could change his mind easily without you even knowing.

He could leave tomorrow and you'd only get child support. The legal minimum is so low and you'll be left swinging in poverty if he stuck by it.

Did you not think of this before you had children?

There's no way I'd have kids without marriage.

Any man who considers me good enough to have his kids and doesn't want to marry me can take a running jump.

I know it is too late, but isn't this the sort of conversation that you should have before children, buying house ?

If he is well off but wary of losing assets to a divorcing spouse can be pay for a housekeeper?

You need more financial security.

It could come from marriage or it could come from him paying upfront to run the house, taking time out to do childcare so you are less mentally stressed by home responsibilities and able to develop your financial independence.

If he has financial independence then you must have a chance at that too and not havd opportunities eroded by family life.

user1492863869 writes: *If given the choice between funding the salary sacrifice or market value of child care, the OH may pick the one that is a lower cost to him or her. In other words the partner could be told to go back to work FT and use alternative child care options.

Yes, but he'd still have to pay half of the cost of childcare. They're his DC too. So it wouldn't save him anything.

At the moment...getting married from a financial perspective benefits you.

Marriage (IMO) is more about commitment.

If he doesnt love you enough to protect you, knowing you'll be up the creek without a paddle if you split up...then you have to accept that's the man he is.

You being vulnerable isn't a concern to him.

Is he resisting because you really want a wedding rather than a marriage?

Given the nature of the OP ('please give me the practicalities and legalities') and the nature of, IME, most men who are happy to shack up and procreate but not legally commit....I'd say it's unlikely.

Not necessarily. I was wondering if OP is wanting the big white wedding etc and using the security angle to persuade DP.

He might just not fancy the limelight and ridiculous costs and faff associated with many modern weddings.

Well I guess we will have to wait for her answer, but it's certainly not the impression I get from this thread, her other one and my lived experience of men who don't commit.