What’s the deal with not being married?

[Cloud1220]

Myself and DP of 10 years are not married. We have two DC. Mortgage/house in joint names 50/50.

Every thread I see on here (when things get rocky) where someone isn’t married has comments like ‘why didn’t you think about marrying him before you had children?’, ‘this is why you should have been married’ etc.

So, wise people in my phone, what do I need to know?!

Good as it is, there's just one problem with the suggestion that OP gets a FT job ... if she starts down a path which inconveniences him, that could easily mean a split happens before she's become financially independent

TBF OP chose to have DCs even though he was very clear about not wanting to marry - but if the trust has gone maybe it would be better to start making arrangements without involving him in them?

Why would it just be the man not wanting to marry.

I have never wanted to marry anyone.

....... of course if you have substantial assets then getting married is taking a 50/50 chance ( 50% of all marriages end in divorce ) of losing half of everything you own , maybe more. Why would you do that ?.

@Lavenderfieldsofprovence - you did mention mental health and posted a link to the mental health act definition (which you obviously hadn’t read as it refuted your point entirely). It’s all there in writing you know!

These threads always go one way with numerous posters going on about how marriage is “protection”, how this is the only way you will be your partners “next of kin” or can be ensured you will inherit their property. Then lots of posters will sneer at unmarried posters claiming they should teach the benefits of marriage at school!

There are some benefits (and drawbacks) of marriage. But it’s total rubbish that being married makes you a “next of kin” or allowed to make medical decisions about someone. It doesn’t.

Similarly, married people can disinherit their spouse or give away their property to whoever they like (at least in England).

Married people can also leave life insurance policies and often pension benefits (depends on scheme) to whoever they like and unmarried people can get these benefits from their partner after death. My pensions and life insurance are left to dds.

The actual benefit of being married is that you of have a claim on the other person’s assets on divorce. That can also be a disadvantage if you have more assets. For example op mentions that she has a final salary pension but her dp has no pension. If all other assets are equally owned, op may be the wealthiest partner in which case marriage may not financially benefit her.

But in any case we need to be accurate and stop making up nonsense about marriage.

I think most people know that if you're the one with most of the assets, or are the higher earner it's a risk to get married. Which is why so many men don't want to. But they are also the ones deriving benefit from their female partner, who is disadvantaged by this arrangement. It's uncomfortable how they are perfectly at ease with her taking all the risk.

So he is saying he doesn't want to get married because of the way someone treated one of his friends - that's awfully misogynistic that he thinks all women are the same. Especially you the mother of his children.

I hate to say it but I've read time and time again on mumsnet about women whose partners don't want to get married and the next thing they know the man has left them and is getting married to an OW. I have no idea if your partner would do that OP but I can never understand why women choose to have children with a man that won't commit to them.

People claim its about the legal protection. Which is better for women if they're married, especially if they take a career hit when having children. But honestly I think a lot of it is just a superiority thing.

@Alexandernevermind

If you aren't married you won't be his next of kin, so any important decisions will be made by your PIL or DP's siblings until your children are old enough. It means you won't inherit his share of your home or any of his money and won't be provided for in his pension. The same goes both ways of course.

It means you won't inherit his share of your home This is not true if you are Joint Tenants .

NC for this.
Actually it can cost just £127 to get married. 2 X £35 for the giving notice and £57 for the minimum ceremony.
I know because we did it.
We have no kids, equal earners, been together about 30 years. I was not keen on paying IHT if one of us died (and people our age were dying). Also his defined benefit pension would pay out a pension to a WIDOW(/ER) but not to a partner.

The minimum price ceremonies tend to be in a small office (i.e. filing cabinets, post-it notes!) in one place in the county, every other Tues and Weds lunchtime or similar.

We did the giving notice before work one day and booked the ceremony between Xmas and NY when we would be on leave anyway. So no time off work at all.

Aside from the £127 therefore our extra costs were the bus fare for us and the two very discreet friends we roped in to be witnesses, plus a coffee round for us all beforehand and a takeaway & wine for 4 in the evening.
Never told anyone (aside from ticking boxes on forms / insurance brokers etc).

Couple of years later one of us had a very very lucky shares windfall and ... you know you can transfer assets between spouses all you like? Yep.
Won back the cost of the marriage and then some in CGT we didn't have to pay because we could use 2 allowances not 1. We never thought a stroke of luck like that would happen to us and it was good we were already married because we might not have been able to get married quick enough to do that otherwise.

PP's considerations about your situation are really what you should focus on - I just wanted to show that a) it can be super inexpensive and low fuss and b) can have real benefits which kick in outwith of death or divorce.

Are you suggesting that all the women posting about making sure you're covered in case he goes are actually up to no good themselves?

But the OP's DP is not just making sure he is covered or that things are fair between them if the relationship goes wrong. He is choosing to leave her at risk. He is more interested in protecting himself from the risk of an unusually nasty woman hanging him out to dry, than he is interested in protecting the mother of his children from just the usual consequences of an ordinary split-up.

Maybe it is just time he grew up and got over it. And asked himself a few questions too, like whether he really ever knew the whole story, or just the version of the man he admired. The wife might have a different tale to tell.

It would really make me pause to hear a man describe a friend’s ex wife as not just representative of all women but also, in fact, the wicked witch of the west.

Aside from it being highly unlikely that it all went down as the ex-husband says - a bitter divorce tends to damage objectivity - the misogyny inherent in thinking that women generally are ‘out to get’ men, desiring to take ‘their’ money etc is absolutely revolting.

I’d be pretty cautious about marrying a man like this actually.

0639hd93djdh
Great post.

I would never marry again because I ended up losing half of everything I owned & my ex husband had made sure that all the debt was in my name as well. I lost the home that I owned that was in my name, he had never contributed to the mortgage, the caravan I paid for, all the furniture I had bought, any work that needed to be done on the house either I or my parents paid for. Marriage is the worst thing a woman with any assets can do, live with someone, but don't marry them unless you want to lose half of everything you own.

Thanks again everyone for your helpful responses.

It’s not yet quite got to LTB territory but I sense it might be going that way... ha

An update: we had a brief discussion last night about how I was feeling about my potentially vulnerable situation (and that of the kids), and we agreed that marriage shouldn’t be off the table completely. So not exactly a gushing romantic proposal (but I knew the score on that front from day 1 I suppose) but a desire from both parties to discuss what would be best for the family unit, so we will see where we go from here!

I will also be taking your advice about a paper trail of contribution to joint account finances and payment of childcare and bumping up my savings (when back at work!)

FT work not an option for me whilst the children are so little as I don’t want to miss out on those early years (and cost of nursery almost outweighs my income). However I have every intention of going back FT when they’re older. I was fortunate in having my pre-kids FT position reduced to PT hours (don’t have a PT job in a bakery as someone suggested ) so feel confident in upping these hours again in my current post/find a new post quite easily when the time is right.

Undoubtedly my career hasn’t progressed as it would have done without children, I’ve missed out on two posts due to being about to start/on mat leave and one promotion opportunity down to not being full time (I know the Law says otherwise, but there you go). But, it was my choice too to have children and my choice to reduce my hours to care for them so I’m prepared to take the hit short-term and fight the corner for PTimers (predominantly women!) getting a fair chance in the workplace.

Just have to hope it doesn’t all go south before then... but I have no reason to think that it will (despite, interestingly, what plenty of people inferred )

Even though the childcare nearly outweighs what you owe, it's really important that you stop thinking of it that way. It would take half your wage if your dp was paying the other half. I know that in real terms it makes no difference since you would still, as a household, have the same income and expenditure but it's a mind shift (for him as well as you) that children are a joint cost and responsibility. You say that you chose to have them and are willing to take the hit, but your do chose to have them too - where is he taking the hit?
Don't be fobbed off with him saying he'll consider marriage. Set a timescale or you'll be in the same place 3 years down the line.

in the meantime, get him to contribute to your pension.

@Cloud1220

Very insightful, thanks all.

@EssentialHummus @SunnySomer to answer your questions:

Currently in the process of sorting our wills. Will be naming each other (and children) as beneficiaries.

In terms of earnings, he is main wage earner and self employed. The business is doing very well. I went part time 3 years ago when we started a family so my income is now less than half of his. We have a joint account and have done since day 1. I pay for the childcare from my part time wage (so, most of my wage gone ) and pay for the kids clothes/birthdays/Xmas etc. He pays for everything else for the house.

We have life insurance policies placed in trust naming each other.

Pension wise - I have a local government pension which he & the kids are named on. He has nothing being self employed.

Interesting about the inheritance tax @TooManyDogsandChildren !!

Building myself a good ‘just in case’ checklist here!

He doesn't have a pension?

@Cloud1220 it's good he had a grown up conversation about it.

Don't take the foot off the gas yet though. Go and do your research related to your circumstances. What legal issues are there, what can be done to overcome them, what do you have in place.

Get the kids watched for an afternoon and go through it all together. Then you can make an informed choice on what works for your situation

Shocked that the kids have his surname and you were ok with that and accepted that you would never have the same name as your own children due to his views on marriage - I think that's really unkind of him actually and as a minimum they should have been double barrelled.

I think what gets in the way of people marrying is the notion of the big white wedding when there are so many other things to save for. what i did was the 30 minute civil ceremony when I was 22 and very poor (but did want to get married). We saved up to buy our first home and we hope to have the celebration with our families post pandemic. THis is 6 years after we married but I am still a fairly young bride at 28.

I don't know why its not more common in the UK. a lot of people on Mumsnet suggest the registry office wedding; been there, done that... but friends and family do want to celebrate with you. Which is why people end up having those weddings, cos its socially mandated. But at the same time, spending 10-20k on a day is insane when you are young/don't have a house or any kind of assets, so people put off the wedding (and the civil marriage) as they assume they can't afford it.

Why not get legally married and tell your friends and family that you would have a celebration at a later date more convenient for yourself. The wedding afterwards is not obligatory. But it may be nice to have when you are more financially established and wish to celebrate your union. That way you get the legal protection, ability to save for more important goals than that 1 day BEFORE the wedding and perhaps also your dream wedding (since you had more time to save; or budget wedding whatever it is). If there are kids before the wedding, you are still protected as you are legally married, they can be your ringbearers/bridesmaids. And surely if you wanted to spend lots of money on your wedding day, its better to do it with a partner that you have been legally entwined for XXX years.

I know!! Self employed tradesman so bottom of the to do list. To be fair by comparison it’s super easy for me when employed and auto enrolled etc. Not so easy to navigate something you don’t understand so well when you’re doing it all on your own. He’s still got age on his side, though.

@Cloud1220

I know!! Self employed tradesman so bottom of the to do list. To be fair by comparison it’s super easy for me when employed and auto enrolled etc. Not so easy to navigate something you don’t understand so well when you’re doing it all on your own. He’s still got age on his side, though.

Oops that was for @VivaMiltonKeynes

@wizzbangfizz our names double barrelled would be pretty awful but I agree with the sentiment

Unless he’s about 22, he doesn’t have age on his side. Not at all. The first 10-15 years of contributions are probably the most important!

You are very vulnerable in my opinion, it's NOT just if you split it's also if he becomes incapacitated or dies - happens more to younger men than people realise

Taking certain points individually

In terms of earnings, he is main wage earner and self employed. The business is doing very well.

HIS business is doing very well unless you're a shareholder? If you were to split you'd gain nothing from the business if not a shareholder and if he were to become incapacitated and unable to work the business I'm assuming would fold?

I went part time 3 years ago when we started a family so my income is now less than half of his.

This is one of the main reasons why women are better marrying BEFORE children. Having children through sheer biology impacts women's earnings negatively in most cases. Add in childcare costs, childcare responsibilities (it tends to be mums who take time off when the kids are sick etc), loss of promotion prospects or even major career process basically reversing and you're incredibly exposed!

We have a joint account and have done since day 1

I had a joint account with my ex, days after I kicked him out for cheating he emptied the account including child benefit and child tax credits leaving me broke! Within weeks run up an overdraft that I was jointly liable for - all resolved during the divorce eventually to some degree (still messed up my credit rating for years) BUT if we'd not been married I'd have had no legal recourse.

"He'd never leave the kids short" - famous last words that I thought myself at one point to my detriment! Don't be me!

I pay for the childcare from my part time wage (so, most of my wage gone) and pay for the kids clothes/birthdays/Xmas etc. He pays for everything else for the house.

Wow! You earn less than 50% what he does yet I think you're possibly paying more than 50% of total family costs?! Why?

We have life insurance policies placed in trust naming each other.

Which he can change without telling you at any time and you could not find out until he dies. Ditto wills - while unmarried you can change it at any time without informing anyone.

Pension wise - I have a local government pension which he & the kids are named on. He has nothing being self employed being self employed is no excuse for no pension! That's really irresponsible of him! Re naming beneficiaries - again can change it any time he likes

Cautionary tale - relative was in a cohabiting relationship and had dc and was a Sahm. Partner died very unexpectedly. House, car every asset in his name, no will, not named on dcs birth certificates etc relatives "in laws" she'd previously got along well with took the lot! She had to go back to work full time within weeks of the bereavement. Awful situation.

As an ex nurse I've also witnessed horrific disputes regarding medical care and life or death decisions.

While there's no legal definition of next of kin (I think there should be) generally speaking when it comes to the crunch medics will tend to cover their arses and go with the person most closely legally linked to the patient if there's conflict.

You can get close to replicating some of the legalities without marrying but it's never exactly the same and overall is more expensive than a simple wedding need be.

I also used to work in the wedding industry and it's absolutely possible to have a lovely wedding without spending much at all. Indeed if you strip it to bare bones it can be done for less than £200 which is cheap when you consider all the protection it confers.

As a side note, if he's as I am guessing a self employed sole trader tradesmen then in the event of a split such men can very easily minimise or altogether avoid paying child maintenance. Major loophole there.

You need this sorted ASAP I'd say