Help - not married, 2 kids, possibly separating

[Soph036]

I'm looking for some advise, my partner has been speaking a lot about separating, this has been going on for the last 18 months, obvs Covid not helping. We have children (4yr and 11 months), I am currently on mat leave due to go back in January. Whilst we both want to try to work on the relationship, I also want to get myself prepared for the possibility of us separating. As we are not married, legally where do I stand? He earns a huge amount more than me, his career path is on the up and when angry / when we are fighting he very much acts like I'm not going to get anything from him. We own a house together, but I feel like just going 50/50 on the house is not going to cut it and will mean a very very different lifestyle for me and our children. Without wanting to get into huge arguments about finances, I'm looking to see what I'm actually eligible for.

A solicitor would be a waste of money, unmarried couples have zero protections.

@evenBetter read my earlier post, under certain circumstances a court can award extra provisions under The Children’s Act 1989 - OP doesn’t have to be married for this to apply as IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN, not her - the clue is in the name. Obviously there is specific criteria to make a claim but only a solicitor will be able to advise OP if it’s applicable to her based on her specific set of circumstances.

If you had bothered to RTFT & then googled the act I mentioned, you would know you are wrong. Please don’t come on here & give incorrect advice about stuff like this because someone could potentially listen to you & make a costly mistake.

I dont understand the "not responsible for childcare costs for his 50%" bit. If he has them 50% of the time then it's for him to make childcare arrangements for those days. If he doesnt, surely that's his problem.

I did read the thread, cheers it’s highly unlikely that OP will be one of the very few girlfriends/boyfriends to get extra money off an ex, and putting the idea into others heads that they have a ray of hope is unethical. Someone could listen to you and make a costly mistake.

If you cannot afford to house yourself and the children on 50% of the equity/house value, then it's possible that you could remain in the house (and he would have to wait for his share) until the youngest child is 18 - but check with a solicitor

This is just silly, she cannot legally stay in his house till the kid is eighteen, they aren’t married, and even if they were the chance of this would be remote for goodness sake. On what planet is any father ever expected to house his kids mother when they never married?

And yes when he has the kids he is responsible for child care, just as she is responsible when she has them,

Some stuff being posted on here. 😱

[quote Tinkity]**@evenBetter* read my earlier post, under certain circumstances a court can award extra provisions under The Children’s Act 1989 - OP doesn’t have to be married for this to apply as IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN*, not her - the clue is in the name. Obviously there is specific criteria to make a claim but only a solicitor will be able to advise OP if it’s applicable to her based on her specific set of circumstances.

If you had bothered to RTFT & then googled the act I mentioned, you would know you are wrong. Please don’t come on here & give incorrect advice about stuff like this because someone could potentially listen to you & make a costly mistake.[/quote]
Don’t be daft the chances of this are beyond vanishingly small
He would just become resident parent snd hire a nanny. Why the hell would he give her his house for eighteen years. 😂

@Bluntness100 - you’re talking nonsense again. Tinkity is suggesting op look at an action under the children’s act for the house to be transferred to her so the children can be housed. No one is suggesting op ask her dp to “give her the house for 18 years”. I don’t believe you have any legal qualifications at all so maybe you shouldn’t comment.

The house is both of theirs, not just his.

Hope you're able to work things out in your relationship OP
If you do, please insist on marriage as part of this because you've walked yourself into a vulnerable situation here and should have insisted on it much earlier in the relationship.

In the event of separation, don't get your hopes up about that Children's Act. Your chances of the joint house being transferred to you are tiny otherwise many unmarried women would be claiming using it. Do be careful because it will cost you in legal fees to start trying to use it to make a claim and he has much more money than you. As the law stands, you've chosen to be legally single people by deliberately choosing to remain unmarried and to reject marital rights and protections, so this scenario is one of your making unfortunately. Many high earning men don't get married for EXACTLY this reason.

Can more women please start taking this seriously and get married to protect themselves and future children. The amount of women who don't bother to look into this before making adult decisions is utterly shocking. If a man truly loves you and is serious about commitment, marriage is a natural progression and is not something he needs to be cajoled into or something you need to allow yourself to be blindly strung along, waiting and hoping like a lost puppy for. If you're good enough to be with long term or have kids with, why on earth shouldn't he legally commit to you?? Ladies, know your worth!

@Incremental

If you cannot afford to house yourself and the children on 50% of the equity/house value, then it's possible that you could remain in the house (and he would have to wait for his share) until the youngest child is 18 - but check with a solicitor

The OP is unmarried unfortunately so this possibility doesn't apply. The house is a joint asset so will simply be split according to the deeds. In any case, since the housing costs are presumably being propped up by the high earner, it's unlikely OP would be able to afford to stay in that home on her own. If they do split (hopefully they will be able to work things out and avoid this) then much more likely that the ex with his high earnings will buy out the OP and give her her share and he stays in the house. Probably what he's had in his mind all along in the event they split up and why he avoided marriage in the first place.

@JiltedJohnsJulie

Every teenage girl in this country should be given the mumsnet website address and told to read it thoroughly before having children. Isn't that the truth.

Yes

All of posts saying

‘It’s just a bit of paper‘

And

‘Our children are our commitment ‚

So important if the either partner has taken a step back in their career to rear children. Thats fine, but you need to know what is at stake if it all goes tits up. (And i say this as a WOHM with a SAHD, it is DH that benefits from the protection of marriage. I’ll have a much harder time of it if I wanted to screw him over financially if I decide to run off with the milkman)

Half the house and whatever you decide between yourselves in child maintenance, or CMS amount if you go down that route. If you know roughly how much he earns you can work out via their calculator how much you'd be likely to receive.

Not very helpful though if he's self employed, as my ex is because they can fudge the books and pay bare minimum. I have a thread running currently on a similar subject.

In terms of help towards childcare, unless he's a decent guy who wants to do right by you and his children I wouldn't go expecting anything above and beyond what he pays in maintenance. It's shit, it really is. Especially when the men are high earners.

The amount I've forked out over the last four years to enable me to work full time, whilst ex is raking it in and paying the bare minimum (whilst treating his older children a lot different financially) is sickening.

But as mothers, and resident parents it's sadly just a case of having to get on with it. Makes my blood boil

@Bluntness100 I agree with a lot of what you say generally but I’ve noticed you have a habit of advising on legal matters when you really have no idea what you’re talking about.

OP has specifically said I'm looking to see what I'm actually eligible for so I’ve informed her of the existence of The Children’s Act as under Schedule 1, an unmarried parent of a child can seek financial provision for said child providing certain criteria is met - I’m advising OP that the Act exists, at no point have I said it’s a slam dunk, sure-fire way of getting the house or made any assertions on how likely she is to succeed.

How likely or unlikely you & @evenBetter think she is to succeed is completely irrelevant - we have no idea of her personal circumstances (apart from her H being a high earner) so the only person who can reliably advise her on if she should pursue a claim is a solicitor.

OP asked for options so I advised of a possible avenue she can look into - that’s it. I’m not making a recommendation either way because I’m not qualified to do so but what irritates me is people giving out completely the wrong information or making assertions based on absolutely nothing - for all we know, OP’s personal circumstances could be tailored made for a Scheduled 1 claim or she might not have a hope in hell but the only way she’ll know is if she looks into it. Heck, even if she does have a case it’s possible she may not be able to pursue it due to prohibitive legal costs. All I’m trying to do is make sure OP is as informed as possible so she can then make the decision that’s right for her - you can’t choose or discount X as an option if you don’t know X even exists in the first place.

By all means give your opinion but it’s the height of arrogance to know absolutely nothing about a topic & then disparage me for giving out factual information whilst giving out completely incorrect information as you & @evenBetter have done.

Why the hell would he give her his house for eighteen years. 😂

I suggest you read the following link & pay careful attention to this part since you find it so hilarious:

A transfer or settlement of property for the purpose of providing a home for the child during their minority (which will mean that once the child completes their secondary or tertiary education, the property which was transferred or settled will be returned to the parent who funded or provided it)

www.stewartslaw.com/expertise/divorce-and-family/financial-provision-for-children/

@Tinkity - well said. Lots of idiots on these types of threads

@Bluntness100 I agree with a lot of what you say generally but I’ve noticed you have a habit of advising on legal matters when you really have no idea what you’re talking about

Yup, you keep on advising her she can possibly ge the house for eighteen years, crack on in getting her to pay money she can’t afford on a solicitor to go that route.

Then insult other posters when they try to point out that is not the way for her to go.

Yup. You go girl.

@FilledSoda

It needs to be taught in schools. Marriage is your legal protection .

It IS taught in schools. I was teaching this very thing just also week. Sadly, a lot of them come from homes where they are taught marriage is ‘just a piece of paper’ bullcrap. To which inalways respond yes! A legal document!

[quote Bluntness100]**@Bluntness100 I agree with a lot of what you say generally but I’ve noticed you have a habit of advising on legal matters when you really have no idea what you’re talking about

Yup, you keep on advising her she can possibly ge the house for eighteen years, crack on in getting her to pay money she can’t afford on a solicitor to go that route.

Then insult other posters when they try to point out that is not the way for her to go.

Yup. You go girl.[/quote]
@Bluntness100 It's strange how some posters are not using common sense. Even the website that the poster herself linked, mentions that court proceedings can take a year or more. If the OP had the sort of funds to support that sort of litigation, chances are it would be more cost effective for her to just get on with financially supporting the kids in the first place! Not to mention that the solicitors (e.g. the one she linked to) would of course have a vested interest in her starting legal action as it's a win-win financial situation for them, regardless of outcome.

OP would need to tread very carefully if she wants to go down that legal route. She can't assume that a court would rule in her favour simply because she's a woman. The whole point of that Act is to secure what's best for the child, not the mother who didn't bother to get married. If the ex is the one with the means to maintain the current lifestyle of the kids, plus wants a very active role in their lives, in many ways it would actually make more sense for the kids to stay with him, with their current house as their main residence!

Sadly, a lot of them come from homes where they are taught marriage is ‘just a piece of paper’ bullcrap. To which inalways respond yes! A legal document!

I often say, yes, IT is a,piece of paper, just like the deeds to my house or a cheque for a million quid.

Well it doesnt sound good, his career may be going on the up if you split you can insist on 50/50 childcare. This will allow you to progress in your own path. Sell your home and sort yourself out. Next time you might want to ensure your married. I have been fiercely independent, work full time, good pension and my OH is now very ill and last year after diagnosis he panicked and we married within 24hrs, as much as it was an emotional day the reality is he did it for his DC not me. I come from a broken home and have always worked and never been propped up by a bloke

Just want to hold your hand here OP. You might wake up and read all these messages above. Its hard to read at times as many make valid points. Sadly, you are now vulnerable as you didn't marry. I am sure you had a good reason not to marry. Anyway, what's done is done. If you have access to any of the finances can you start to squirrel away some to help with your legal costs if you go down that route? Things may turn nasty with him so you need to prepare yourself for this. Alternatively, depending on what he is like there may be a chance he will be generous and help you out independently. We can only hope for that. You mention that you worry about the lifestyle change you are not keen for with your children. Sadly it will be you who will have to adjust to that. Your children are too young to notice. If their dad has this amazing job then the lifestyle will be maintained by him so they wont miss out, if that really is your biggest worry to this split. In time, I hope you can forge a great career for yourself and learn this lesson of the consequences of not having a legal document when buying houses together and having children. I sit on the "no to marriage camp". I never married as my assets were too big to risk the marital document that would strip me of half my home, my investments and my pension. My female colleagues in the same profession have done just that, married and have been stripped of half of everything by their husbands when they left and we are all coming up to retirement age. So, I can see both sides to this argument. At the end of the day, your children want a happy home and happy parents....it doesn't sound they are getting this now. Good luck OP.

Bluntness you are wrong. Tinkity is correct.

There is certainly scope for the OP remaining in the home until the youngest is 18 and it is indeed possible to claim additional support under the Act regardless of marriage.

Op please seek legal advice as some replies on here are completely incorrect.