Getting married to get legal and financial protection.

[PerspicaciaTick]

If you are not married to your partner and feel you may be financially or legally vulnerable in the event of the relationship ending or your partner dying, please don't be put off getting married just because of the cost.
A statutory ceremony in England costs £46, plus £11 for a marriage certificate and £70 (£35 each) to give notice. £127 in total. Every registration district in England has to offer a ceremony at this cost by law.
It may not be in a great location, or on a weekend, but it is designed to ensure that marriage is accessible to everyone.

We got married last year in a statutory ceremony. Eighteen years together, two kids, joint finances, both earning roughly the same amount and the much derided 'moral' objections to marriage but... I feel safer now. It's just the tiny bits. Even if I knew I would get his pensions and life insurance, even though I knew I could take care of myself financially, it still felt all round safer.

We had neighbours as witnesses and then have pretty much told no one. But at least we know it is there should the worst happen.

I dont think anyone should get married if that's really not what they want but yes, it helps to remind people that this cheap and easy statutory ceremony exists to just get it all over and done with with the minimum of fuss.

I don’t tgink it’s about SAHD vs SAHMs either. I’m just wondering why so few men are unmarried SAHDs if it’s such a good deal and not risky in any way.

The thread is all about the risks associated with giving up your career , pension, earnings, status and promotion chances for someone else who has no legal or financial obligations or ties to you. Especially if you are likely to become the RP When you split.

Aside from financial matters - being Next of Kin etc can be something. I do not mean to be depressing. & I earned more than DH in first few years of marriage - so didn't enter into it to get his money or pension. As it turned out he was better at his job than I was at mine so tables turned but certainly a very equal partnership to begin with - much later on different roles ( equally important - one paid money into the bank account - the other one helped the family - rubbish way of explaining but I hope you see my point)

Seriously can someone tell me what marriage / civil partnership gives you over other contracts / legal things you can put in place if you are partners but unmarried. I can google it I am sure - but I am fairly sure marriage / Cp gives you a lot of those rights in one fell swoop.

I am only talking here of the legalities of marriage / civil partnership - nothing to do with flowers / venues etc

@stacktherocks I can see a lot of reasons why you might be more secure married.

I am not married and would be financially worse off if we were and we split due to my assets.

But for you, yes, you have a decent salary. You say you would never give up working. Do you already know that a child you might have won't be severely disabled needing round the clock care? It happens. Do you already know that you won't have triplets for example? Changes things slightly.

Also, you say you would drop to 4 days. Your DP would only do this if the circumstances were right. It's very likely that they won't be as his salary is the one that requires training and is going to rise. When you drop to 4 days, on a 45000 salary that's a drop of around 9000. All of a sudden your DP is earning 70000 and you are earning 36000. So half.

If your DP were to walk and not pay his half of the mortgage you would be left with a house you can't afford to pay for plus 4 days childcare for several kids. Your house could very well be in negative equity, dodgy times for the UK.

Also there are other things to think of.

If a partner dies you would not be automatically given access to his accounts.

If he is on life support the decisions on what to do would not be yours as you're not his next of kin.

People always think it won't happen to them. But it can and as long as you are aware of it then you can make the right choices for you

@Stacktherocks - that is entirely my friend's issue in that marriage has a connotation he does not want

I have to say I do not associate marriage with being "given away" or being somehow the property of my father or husband. It was only after the Norman conquest and later that we went through a period of women not being able to won property in their own right. I did do the think where I did not say " obey " in the wedding vows but honestly if you dispense with father "giving away " the bride ( not necessary ) and all the other flummery - I do not see why marriage in its simplest form isn't something most people could deal with. But if not , as and when it is introduced Civil partnership for heterosexual couples. Other than that - well - yes put the pieces together bit by bit - or not. But ( & obviously more important when you have children ) whether you are male or female , understand the situation. At which point I have a very great many eggs here and I shall call upon my grandmother to take a class.

I don’t tgink it’s about SAHD vs SAHMs either. I’m just wondering why so few men are unmarried SAHDs if it’s such a good deal and not risky in any way.

There could be several reasons. I am sure they all have their own.

But I am imagining they think it's too risky to give up everything for love

Personally I think the bigger problem in this country is how easy it is for one parent to walk away from their child, I know it can be either parents although the only ones I've personally known to do so are dads.
Marriage will give you a share of the assets, but they had to be assets to share and they can be hidden if you know what to do. The majority of people aren't super high earners (although on Mumsnet I think that's sometimes forgotten) so even with 50% or a bit more if you've been a SAHM, it might not be much.
Me and Dp have a mortgage so looking at equity, both our pensions, savings, if we split 50/50 we'd probably be looking at 60,000 grand each. Not enough to buy a house outright, but a decent deposit. Only if I'm not working I'd not get a mortgage, how long would 60,000 grand last if I'm paying rent and living off it?
All that would be manageable and ok though, what would royally screw me over would be him not paying maintenance and seen as he could quite easily go self employed he could well get away with paying very little. Of course I don't think he would do that, but no one does, do they?

Really the best advice is don't give up work, don't reduce hours, don't sacrifice your career prospects. Of course that's easy said than done when you want to spend time with you Dc and when only women can be pregnant and breastfeed!

Personally I think this country needs a maintenance overhaul. It needs to be very difficult if not impossible, to not pay adequately for your children. Any will if you've got dependent children should be invalid if the children are not provided for In it and that should include if the parent as re married, the new spouse shouldn't get everything if there's dependent children involved. Plus any money from bereavement of a spouse to a dependent child should be able to be used to cover the costs involved in raising the child.
So my Dp shouldn't be able to say, leave our baby Ds 100 grand in his will but not leave me anything to help with the cost of raising him.

Marriage is a huge gamble for the party with the most to lose.

Yes, on here you see threads where when the woman is the higher earner she is advised to protect her assets but any women who are unmarried because the man wants to protect his assets are usually vilified for being stupid (I am one of those foolish women who had kids with a man who doesn't want to get married).

Re. Civil Partnerships for all couples, there was an interview on BBC Breakfast just this morning with one of the campaigners and it sounded like it will be going ahead in the near future.

GirlOnIt I agree. I didn't give up work. Despite being married.

Upon splitting, half the assets have me a good deposit. I got the mortgage because I was employed.

Anyone thinking of being a sahm really needs to think these things through. Even when married.

The downside of that, is the 50:50 care of the kids is more likely too. Which is what happened in my case. However the kids, as they got older decided to stay with me more. Many women dont want shared care, which I also understand.

People should be allowed to walk away so easy.

However I am not sure how anyone can enforce someone you dont have a legal partnership with to provide for you in the event of death. Especially if you arent together.

www.telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/opposite-sex-couples-granted-right-civil-partnerships-190k/

The bill extending Civil Partnerships was passed on Friday. No mention of how much it costs to get one.

Link fail www.telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/opposite-sex-couples-granted-right-civil-partnerships-190k/

I give up!

Yes but the Bill itself doesn't allow mixed-sex civil partnerships, it just requires the government to put that in place by the end of the year here

Yes, on here you see threads where when the woman is the higher earner she is advised to protect her assets but any women who are unmarried because the man wants to protect his assets are usually vilified for being stupid

I agree to a point. But it depends on the situation

Between me and dp I have a higher paid job and assets. We wont be having kids so no need for him to quit work and look after them. No need for him to give up his earning potential or career. So yes I will protect my assets. He doesn't pay towards the mortgage or pay towards anything i do in my house. We may live together soon and that will remain the same.

If he sells his house and wishes to put the money into my house that's fine and we would have the house in both names protecting what we have each put into it. If he keeps his house and rents it outm then I am happy for him to keep that asset.

If we were having a child and he was giving up work we would talk about the best way to protect us both.

My deposit for my house came from my buying at house at 19. It's the only thing I have to leave my kids. I wont be giving half away to a man who has less in assets bit who also has his own caree and financially stable.

But it would change if we have kids.

Every situation is different. But, in general, women who give up financial independence who arent married and dont have their name on the property are in a very risky situation.

I don't mean to leave money to ex's. But just that money left for children if under 18, should be able to used to support the children. I knew someone who was left a large amount from their dad, but it couldn't be spent until he inherited at 18.
Obviously as the dad died the mum was no longer getting any maintenance for the children, which left them really struggling financially.
To me personally if assets allow, maintenance should be able to be claimed from a deceased parents estate. So say the child is 10, and dad was paying £200 a month. The mum would be owed around 19,000 in maintenance up to the child turning 18.

But if your dp could choose set up life insurance to leave to you.

The same as you should do for him.

We do @Frenchmontana. I wasn't meaning my own situation.
What I mean is in the case parents who don't or who are separated and seem to think that means they no longer need to be financially responsible for their children.
I think being married for protection is outdated and the wrong way to look at it. The children should be protected, whether they were born in marriage or not, if they were born in the first or second marriage, the third or to a one night stand. It shouldn't matter.

I don't want or need Dp's money if we split up. I'm a adult and I'll support myself. But regardless of if we marry or not he should have a responsibility to provide for his child first and foremost. The fact that he could leave me and marry someone else and she'd have a greater claim over his assets than his dependent child is in my opinion wrong.

I don't want or need Dp's money if we split up. I'm a adult and I'll support myself. But regardless of if we marry or not he should have a responsibility to provide for his child first and foremost. The fact that he could leave me and marry someone else and she'd have a greater claim over his assets than his dependent child is in my opinion wrong.

He does have a responsibility in law to provide for his children. He would be liable for child maintenance payments.

Equally, the two of you could agree that he becomes the main or even sole carer, and you would have to give him child maintenance. So it is already equal and fair in law. Or do you disagree?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the legal question of assets within a marriage. If you had a share in the marriage assets then you might be in a better position to provide better for your children. If you have spent some years investing in the home and your children rather than your career and earnings, then this will not be recognised in the event of a split if you are not married.

I am utterly failing to see what is outdated about this. It is a matter of law. What I do see frequently on these threads, is that people imagine that they are making some sort of 'modern' 'woke' choice, in not getting married.

IMO this is mostly because of ignorance and lack of education. And there is still a shocking amount of it on this thread.

I know the law as it stands @Haffiana. I'm saying the law should better protect children financially regardless of if they were conceived in marriage or not.
Yes, he'd be eligible for maintenance, but it's all too easy to dodge, especially if self employed. And like I mentioned we could separate him re marry and his future wife is more entitled to his estate than his dependent child. Personally I think that is outdated and goes back to the little wife needing looking after.

I'm not saying anything of this in relation to my relationship. We have life insurance, joint home etc and I don't imagine Dp wouldn't pay maintenance or still ensure Ds is provided for if we were to split up.
But I've seen men do just that, leave a family and offer no financial support, hide assets so ex's can't make a claim and 'stop' working so they can't claim maintenance.
That's what I think should change.

The children should be protected, whether they were born in marriage or not, if they were born in the first or second marriage, the third or to a one night stand. It shouldn't matter.

The children are protected in law. That's what the CMS payments are for. That process needs tidying up and sorting out. Granted.

What I mean is in the case parents who don't or who are separated and seem to think that means they no longer need to be financially responsible for their children.

Again they can. A trust, can release money if required.

Again, what about people who have money, share care with their abusive ex. As I do. Would you want to leave 20k to your abusive ex who spanked his half of the settlement away, without planning for the kids?

I bought a house to secure the kids and to have something to leave them. He spent his on several cars and several holidays, with his friends. That's fine it's his money. But any money I left him in a will would not go on the kids. It would go on him.

As it stands the kids are spending more and more time with me. They are here 95% of the time. No CMS for me as he is self employed. If I die he would get full care of them. They wouldn't benefit from any money i left to exh.

You are assuming the parents left behind would have the children's best interests at heart.

GirlOnIt how is any of that going to engage, with your prosed changes though.

You could still hide assets, refuse to pay, go self employed etc.

@swindy, thanks so much for your advice. You make some excellent points re dropping income and being unable to predict whether you’ll have a child with disabilities or multiples and the possibility of one person running off and not contributing to the mortgage anymore leaving the other up shit creek. You can never 100% trust or predict the actions of someone however much you love them. Good point too re life support decisions. I may take some steps to get marriage brought forward a little based on your advice!

I think one primary reason so many people are setting up home and having kids without marriage is the shift in social norms re when to settle down. In days gone by it was seen as desirable to get married rather than cohabit, to marry in you early twenties, to have kids soon after marriage. Homes were a bit more affordable.

These days it’s very difficult to get on the property ladder single, even as a couple. I’ve found it incredibly rare in my social group to find any woman who wants to have a family in her twenties, and most men I meet aren’t remotely interested in kids until their thirties, the ones I know who had them in their twenties had ‘accidents’. Marriage is seen as something you do in your thirties if at all. I know if I’d even considered marriage in my twenties people would have said surely you’re too young, don’t rush.

The upshot is, by the time you’re in an okay position for a child you’ve spent your twenties working on your career and trying to save for a house, therefore you’re in your thirties and well aware time isn’t on your side regarding fertility. After a few 2-3 year long relationships in my twenties with men who said they wanted kids but ultimately decided they wanted to wait until their mid to late thirties, I met my OH at 28. Then it’s a couple of years together to make sure you’re built to last, saving hard for a house, and boom you’re in your thirties, can’t justify spending money on a wedding cos you need it for a house deposit and won’t have enough left after for kids, unwilling to risk not having kids at all by waiting to get married.

In an ideal world I’d like to have been married or civil partnered before kids, though I’m not that fussed and didn’t ever really have a craving to marry. But at 31 having had so many relationships with guys who ran screaming from commitment I’m choosing to crack on and TTC while I still have a reasonable chance (I have fertility issues). Thankfully in a stable wonderful relationship and almost on the housing ladder, so could be worse. But I wouldn’t hang around planning a wedding (yeah I know the whole do it for a hundred quid thing but I feel if I’m gonna do it at all I’d like it to be at least a bit nice!) while my fertility crashes when I’d rather have a family than be married.

Planning to marry either during pregnancy or within the first year of a possible child’s life I think. But I can totally see how so many people have ended up cohabiting with kids not married. I don’t have a single friend my age, 31, who married before children.

But I wouldn’t hang around planning a wedding (yeah I know the whole do it for a hundred quid thing but I feel if I’m gonna do it at all I’d like it to be at least a bit nice!) while my fertility crashes when I’d rather have a family than be married.

I don't understand what you are saying here, tbh. You could get married but you would rather not because you want a big party and can't afford it?

The way I would look at it is - it is one of the expenses involved in doing the best for your personal future, and the future of your children. Just like a good, safe pram, a decent cot/nursery room, a good school... Except 1000 times more important.

And it takes a few minutes in a registry office. You can have your big planned party at any time you want.

How did this happen - that people mistake the wedding for the marriage?