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.

I agree, Sandy. I used two forms of contraception because I was just not going to have a child with someone I wasn't married to.

Because for all the reasons mentioned previously they care about their partner not being screwed over when they've risked themselves in quite a lot of ways?

He knows, Pringle. He knows the score. Still hasn't married her. Doesn't want to.

@SandyY2K

So you would then. In certain circumstances? For all you know they were my circumstances! In which case you agree.

@prawnofthepatriarchy Unmarried fathers can find it hard to get access. Maybe things are much better these days

Marital status has nothing to do with the decisions made in family courts around fathers and child contact. It's solely based on the existing relationship and any risk factors.

@zsazsajuju

Financial protection isn't the reason you get married IMO.
You get married because you love the person and choose to make what I consider, the ultimate commitment in a romantic relationship.

I appreciate that's not everybody's view.

However, once the love is established...you think about protection...if you're going to be the one making career sacrifices.

It was okay for you not to have a child in marriage.. because you're able to support that child on your own.

In my experience... it's not women from comfortably wealthy middle class backgrounds who end up in the OPs position. That's in general... not in every single case.
Those middle class expect marriage...their families expect it and wouldn't be impressed if their daughters were having kids without marriage...as old fashioned and outdated as some think it is.

Honestly speaking...I think large income gaps cause problems in relationships. I wouldn't have married someone with a large income gap to me.

@Sparklyfee

So you would then. In certain circumstances? For all you know they were my circumstances! In which case you agree.

Yes....but I wouldn't expect anything from the father and if he wasn't marrying me...then I wouldn't still be in a relationship with him.... so I wouldn't be where the OP is.

I'd find another man to marry and financial security wouldn't be an issue.

Back to top

NotANotMan, I assume it's because if my DH had been divorced access would have been sorted out then. Because he was a single dad he'd have had to go to court to establish a right of access. Our solicitor advised us that as DSD's mum was intransigent it was probably a waste of money taking her to court as she could just refuse to let DSD come when DH went to collect her, claiming illness or whatever. Told us to wait, in hopes that eventually she'd calm down and go back to the previous arrangement. Which she did.

Not sure why the solicitor felt being married would've made a difference. It was a long time ago though.

And she is now in a shit bargaining position.

It's easy to scoff at mr and mrs average getting married then having kids but there is a reason why the majority do it this way. It's fairer. The law can step in to help you if mr big shot meets someone perkier at the office and wants to jettison the woman whose given up her youth and her career to build a family with him. He can literally waltz off into the sunset and she is royally stuffed.

@SandyY2K

Well I have to agree with that. And I do think it's up to each individual to plan and protect themselves financially.

For what it's worth I was always able to financially support myself and my child. I didn't expect anything at all from anyone else. So no, I wouldn't find myself in the OPs position either.

If I was the OP I would give him 2 choices,

1. get married (without the expensive wedding faff) purely as a financial security arrangement so no fancy dresses/bridesmaids/alpacas required. Or

2. I am going back to work full time to build my savings and pension and we will draw up a budget that involves us fairly splitting whatever costs we have

Yes - you either take sparklys approach and rely on no one or if you are relying on the father and intend to compromise your career for the good of family and the benefit of the main earner you need marriage. The worst option is sadly where op has ended up.

Well I have to agree with that. And I do think it's up to each individual to plan and protect themselves financially.

Absolutely.

Although I'd be feeling rather resentful in the OPs shoes and be figuring out how to exit the relationship for that reason.

I read a few similar threads and the OP says how his family is rich and have the resources to fight a court case where she doesn't.

He can afford a lovely house for the kids and she is on the breadline.

He can afford super holidays and she struggles to get to Bournemouth.

Money is power...and certain people seem to relish in a having power over their partner in these situations.

Apart from making the OP feel protected and happy (which he clearly doesnt want to) there's nothing in marriage for him.
Although I've heard unmarried fathers can find it more difficult with custody.

Women tend to hold some power with this, although it's not necessarily in the best interests of the child.

I bet the kids even have his surname.

I bet they do sandy

If you feel vulnerable and are seeking encouragement from a forum of strangers for him to marry you there are clearly issues. He would be putting himself in a more vulnerable position marrying you. Speak to a financial advisor and get proper legal advice on where you would stand if the relationship did break down and start making changes to stop you feeling so vulnerable. A bunch of strangers writing why your vulnerable isn’t going to convince someone to get married if they don’t want it. You say your mental health is affected by your job if you increase your hours was this the case before children? If so consider a career change and get yourself in a better financial position so if you did split you will be ok

The citizens advice website has a list of all the differences legally between married couples and legally single people (boyfriend and girlfriend/girlfriend and girlfriend/etc)

Yes, sadly I think the OP is screwed. He is using her for housework and childcare, but he blatantly does not love her enough to marry her.

The OP may have made some sub-optimal decisions along the way (haven't we all?) to get to this situation, but that doesn't make her partner any less of a sorry excuse for a human being.

This is one of the few situations where I could imagine continuing to live with a man while covertly but actively seeking out a better partner.

Well, either that or poisoning his coffee. Because he has actually created a situation where he is worth more to her dead than alive!

@sandyy2k. I think the thing about the post is “sensible middle class women” is saying that women who have children outside marriage are either not sensible or are lower class. Both are pretty nasty imo. That’s nice that you think “the middle class expect marriage”. Clearly the op and I are both a bit lower class or not sensible.

It wouldn’t be sensible for me to marry my ex. It wouldn’t have given me financial “protection” from anything. Yet I see these threads all the time about how women should get married for that. I happen to agree that marriage is about love for me. But I like to be independent and not sure I would give that up for anyone.

I like the “difference” in income, do you mean you wouldn’t want to marry someone who earned less than you? What’s happened to marriage being about love? Love of what?

I do wonder if some of us are advocating life plans that are no longer viable for men and women, working or middle class. Myself included.

Male or female, the young are not being offered secure long term careers with solid pensions. They can’t expect to see large increases in already over inflated property values. Those who have gone through university are saddled with debts whilst lower skilled jobs don’t offer incomes that enable saving. Living standards have stagnated and I don’t think that will change whatever government we vote in.

Men, even middle class men, are likely to take career breaks and have forced breaks from employment. So are their wives or partners. A few people will have some inherited or family wealth to sustain them but a lot of this is tied up in property or needed for elderly care.

I agree with both Zsazsa and Sandy in a way, they are describing lifestyles and choices I recognise. Both worked for a lot of people in my generation but that is mainly because one or both people in the relationship had a solid and traditional career. The housing market helped too.

The OP is sort of stuck between two choices that applied to paridigm that increasing doesn’t exist. Her real vulnerability comes from that lack of certainty, about jobs, relationships and the future. Plus a partner who is mitigating his life risks at her unwitting expense. She really needs to redefine her situation at work and at home.

When you have climbed most of life’s mountain it is easy to look down wonder why some people are choosing more difficult routes. But sometimes those routes just don’t exist anymore or have new obstacles and pitfalls.

It's not a moral issue, it's a practical one and an emotional one.

The emotional aspect I dealt with upthread - if one partner says "it's just a meaningless piece of paper" and the other one says "but it would mean a lot to me", then there comes a point where the anti-marriage partner has to decide what matters more to them - the feelings of the partner they profess to love, or some sort of commitment to being anti... well, anti what, precisely?

The pragmatic aspect depends on age and stage of life.

If I were a woman in my twenties, I would want marriage to provide security against loss of earnings due to kyboshed career progression following maternity leave/ lower salary due to going part-time, and also (depending on the value of the family house) protection against losing my house through inheritance tax were my partner to step under a bus.

In the position I'm in now - single parent, in my 50s, good job, reasonable earnings, decent pension, house almost paid off - I would not want marriage, because I wouldn't want a partner having a claim on my pension in the event of a split, or having a claim on my house which I intend to leave to DC when I eventually pop my clogs.

Nothing about the morality or otherwise of marriage, purely about the practical consequences.

OP, look at it from his viewpoint. Marrying you would place him in a vulnerable position should you later divorce him.

Sorry, Scott, did you think anyone on this thread didn't understand WHY this man won't marry? Do you think we haven't worked it out?

She is in a vulnerable position RIGHT NOW, because she is raising THEIR KIDS. If he doesn't see their assets as shared family ones, if he doesn't care about the long term sacrifices she's making, if he is happy for her to get fucked over for THEIR KIDS without compensation or recognition because what's his is his, the problem isn't that he'd be "vulnerable" by compensating her for the sacrifices she's made for their family. His earning power would continue untouched. The problem is that it means he's an unloving, uncaring, selfish piece of shit who's happy to use a woman as a womb, nanny and housekeeper, but doesn't think she deserves any protection for it.

And you apparently have no problem with that.

The “vulnerable position” of having to share some of his wealth, to compensate his ex for long term financial detriment to working PT, or not at all, to parent the DC?

Whilst he retains most of the wealth and earning power.

Yeah, vulnerable.

the biggest hogwash ever. Why do you think women our vunerable?? 30yrs childcare,31 years house ownership. wills,morgage taken care of.its on paperwork,why. We work togeher why cant you??

It's incredible that a man should be using a woman as an incubator and housekeeper, with no legal protection, but he should be the "vulnerable" one if he should ever have to compensate her for her resulting long term loss of earnings.

Equally incredible that anyone should look at this thread and think that we needed to have this twat's motives mansplained to us.

AynRand I think I love you (the poster on here, not the weird American writer, obviously).

I'm not the one she has to convince. Firstly, she has to work out if it is fear of divorce that is the main impediment to him wanting to marry her. Then work out with him exactly what would happen in the event of divorce. Check with a lawyer. Maybe he is going over unrealistic worst case scenarios in his head. There's pre-nups too, although they have little legal standing they might serve to allay his fears.