Does trend of kids before marriage contribute to child poverty?

[purpleneon]

I feel like these days more and more people have kids without being married; it doesn't seem to be as important for either men or women.

This is fair enough, but particularly from reading Mumsnet threads, it seems like it is mainly women that get screwed when relationships with an unmarried partner breaks down & they have kids , especially when they're SAHP who haven't paid into their pension or worked for ages. This seems to be due to the huge difference of dividing assets of married people on divorce v. unmarried people on break ups.

Find it frustrating that people feel "judged" if you comment on how lifestyle choices contribute to outcome (which is not the intention), but this trend seems to be contributing to child poverty which is sad & it's the kids that lose out.

People also seem to expect the government to step in when the problem also stems from us as a society choosing to have children in more "unstable" settings.

How can unmarried people (esp. the lower earning partner) with kids be protected more when relationships break down?

A third of marriages end in divorce so hardly that stable. You can be married and have absolutely no assets to divide anyway. Spousal support is very rare so that's not a consideration for most. A divorced man/woman who is not RP doesn't automatically support their dc to the best of their ability or get into any trouble if they don't pay child support.

What would help?
Making home ownership within people's reach.
Making childcare outside the home affordable so parents can both work.
Educating women about the legal benefits of marriage OR ensuring legal contracts are drawn up about assets.

Equal pay for women so they're not usually the lower paid. Revamping the child support system so non-rp parent pay a fair amount and are penalised if they don't.

Coming down hard on non-rp who hides assets like pensions or go self employed to avoid child maintenance.
Stop blaming single mothers for child poverty and shift the focus to absent fathers.

I had both of children out of wedlock. I did later go on to marry him but it broke down after a few years.

Marriage, in essence, is a financial contract which will protect women in particular in just these situations but it's been so associated with love and romance that people forget this.

I think opening up civil partnerships to opposite sex couples is a good idea because it offers the legal protections without the faff. So a legal contract of sorts is, I believe, still necessary in order to protect when children are involved.

I had ds without getting married. I earned less than my ex but was still on a decent salary and able to support myself.
I may have earned less but ex was hopeless with money (as I later found) so I am much more financially secure. Thank heavens I didn't marry him. He had been less than honest about his finances.
Having a child with someone who can pay half the nursery fees for three years is sadly more important from the financial point of view. Risking my own financial security by marrying and becoming one financial unit would have put us more at risk.

An unmarried partner with kids can get more protection by getting married - not sure there even is another option to be honest.

However, if one partner owns assets, they are unlikely to marry someone who isn't their financial equal

I don't necessarily think it's about married v unmarried and much more about people having children they can't afford.

One of the things I looked into when we were deciding to have children is whether, financially, I could cope alone if we were to separate.

It's not a nice thing to consider as part of your decision making but people need to be more practical and realistic.

In general parents who cohabit are more likely to split than married parents. And children of single parents are more likely to experience poverty than couples. There is statistical data to back these statements (but you can go look for it yourself).

Individually things might be very different. The wealthiest person I know wasn’t married when she had her children. They are very privileged.

Marriage confers protection for children when couples split if, and only if, there is sufficient assets and income within the marriage in the first place. Where there are assets and good income, there is a lot of downsides to separation and divorce for parents. This means people are more likely to work at it. Not so much when you aren’t married.

@girlmom21

I don't necessarily think it's about married v unmarried and much more about people having children they can't afford.

One of the things I looked into when we were deciding to have children is whether, financially, I could cope alone if we were to separate.

It's not a nice thing to consider as part of your decision making but people need to be more practical and realistic.

I do agree with this… my DPs mum wanted a baby rather than children (if that makes sense) and they didn’t have a pot to piss in. My DPs enduring memories of his childhood are being bored and hungry. He is incredibly resentful that he was brought up in such a situation. I appreciate there are complex issues at play socially and politically and don’t think only the very comfortable should have children, but if you can hardly afford to feed and house yourself why on earth inflict that on a child as well.

I think being a sahp makes you vulnerable (I am one, so not chucking stones). Being a sahp with no marriage in place and no assets or income makes you extremely vulnerable. Their are always exceptions but on the whole its those women who seem to suffer the most during relationship breakdowns.

I think the cost of childcare must be tackled to allow women to get back into the workplace if they want to. It is soooo expensive that sometimes families make more of a loss thank they can actually afford. Many families can absorb the cost and for the women involved it makes sense to stay on their career trajectories but there are those for whom childcare costs would push them into debt. This shouldn’t be the case.

Ideally yes people wouldn’t have kids they can’t afford but at the same time childcare bills can run into the thousands a month. I’d like to see that capped and more free hours at 1yrs old. 15 hours a week at 2 makes it quite difficult to find suitable work.

Or do people in poverty not have the money to get married?

Education level of the women seems to be key rather than marriage

Being married doesn’t = stable, nor does marriage = wealth.

The relationships thread will show you that.

I agree with many PP re childcare/work etc, but more importantly more education on what constitutes a healthy relationship is needed prior to having children.

Too many people have children in poor r/ships then by child 2,3,4 wonder why life is so hard.

For the record, I’m happily married over a decade, but I was taught what a decent relationship should look like from young.

National insurance numbers should be mandatory for both parents on the birth certificate. The current details provide little to go on when trying to trace. In the case of absentee parents not contributing then HMRC can directly deduct funds from pay at source and divert them to the responsible parent.
I get frustrated having my wages deducted of tax knowing that some feckless fathers who earn a good wage but contibute little or no money for their offspring an expect the state to pick up the tab.
Why should my family be denied things as I get increasingly taxed so the state can cover living expenses of absent parents?
I'm all for assistance in a time of need but some play the system to the extreme.

@Mn753

Or do people in poverty not have the money to get married?

Education level of the women seems to be key rather than marriage

I agree that education of the mother plays a role, but I think rates of marriage have plummeted across the board (including less educated groups & they are the ones more likely to end up vulnerable).

I don't think the cost of marriage is the prohibitive part - it can be all in £100ish (depending on which part of the country you live in) if you just do the legal bit. Feels like people just don't place much importance on it or see the point.

I agree maybe marriage isn't the protective factor I imagine it could be, but seems like a higher % chance that a man who shows more commitment by getting married is less likely to disappear or not look after his kids v. co-habiting partner or a boyfriend. Guess I'm thinking of probabilities.

Not blaming mothers, I just feel sad that them and their kids seem to bear the brunt of problems in the aftermath

Being married would have made no financial difference to me. We didn't own ant assets. And I assume ex would still have gone on to have more dc and refuse to pay cms.

@saleorbouy

National insurance numbers should be mandatory for both parents on the birth certificate. The current details provide little to go on when trying to trace. In the case of absentee parents not contributing then HMRC can directly deduct funds from pay at source and divert them to the responsible parent. I get frustrated having my wages deducted of tax knowing that some feckless fathers who earn a good wage but contibute little or no money for their offspring an expect the state to pick up the tab. Why should my family be denied things as I get increasingly taxed so the state can cover living expenses of absent parents? I'm all for assistance in a time of need but some play the system to the extreme.

National insurance numbers on birth certificates is a good idea. Lot of the problem is absent fathers not being responsible & this would definitely help!

It's not necessarily the not being married, but being an unmarried mother and financially dependent on the father is very risky for children and their mothers though

It's tricky though because a financially successful woman would be (as PP has shown) ill advised to marry a man who is less financially stable, so presumably the same advice holds for men? Frona purely financial pov, why would he want to marry someone who's not his financial equal?

Birth control for men
Changing the way work is done.
Place more value on raising children
Better education for women
Allow cohabitating for x amount of time count like a marriage.

I think fewer people now consider whether they can afford a baby before getting pregnant. I've seen threads on here where women can't afford a pregnancy test, but it's a planned baby.

@RantyAunty

Birth control for men Changing the way work is done. Place more value on raising children Better education for women Allow cohabitating for x amount of time count like a marriage.

I like the idea of cohabiting for x about of time giving similar rights to marriage.

I don't think birth control would make a huge difference as it's already free for women in the UK & men have less to "lose" from unwanted pregnancies.

Maybe it is an education point, but I feel lots of people just assume the government or someone else will pick up the bill when they have kids in ridiculously unstable situations. Is that due to lack of education?

Cheaper childcare would help, but that's also expecting the government to pick up the tab I guess as the only solution I can think of is them subsidising it more or at least making childcare costs tax deductible.

The pathetically poor enforcement of child maintenance from the NRP directly contributes to the number of children in poverty imo- there are no penalties for not paying for your child.

My parents were married for 7 years, owned a home, both employed when I was born. Didn’t stop my ‘father’ walking out when I was under a year old and never paying a penny, meaning my mum had to become a stay at home parent at least until I went to school, then only having the option of taking low paid jobs to fit around child care etc etc

(I don’t have experience of child maintenance as an adult but don’t believe it has changed in any meaningful way- but would be happy to be wrong!)

Some of us are more financially stable not being married.
I own a house, have savings & have kept working.
DP is still paying off dept from years before we got together, he had seriously poor money management lessons from his parents.

Changing the law to give DP a share of my assets after we've been together for a certain amount of time would split us up, I'm not willing to risk the security of my home for DP's debts.

Teaching children about money management at school & making it the law that both parents are financially responsible for their children whether their together or not would help solve child poverty.

Are you from the Daily Mail? Or...do you read the daily mail? I would try a bit of sociology... or social policy or gender studies...from...y'know...BOOKS containing actual RESEARCH🤣🤣

I don’t think relationship status has much bearing on money situations.

If you decide to not work or do a token few hours you won’t have the resources to support a child alone.

Better to encourage working than marriage I feel.

@saleorbouy

National insurance numbers should be mandatory for both parents on the birth certificate. The current details provide little to go on when trying to trace. In the case of absentee parents not contributing then HMRC can directly deduct funds from pay at source and divert them to the responsible parent. I get frustrated having my wages deducted of tax knowing that some feckless fathers who earn a good wage but contibute little or no money for their offspring an expect the state to pick up the tab. Why should my family be denied things as I get increasingly taxed so the state can cover living expenses of absent parents? I'm all for assistance in a time of need but some play the system to the extreme.

Child maintenance is a broken system and more needs to be done to make men responsible for their offspring and that would go a long way towards reducing child poverty. However no matter what they pay, it makes no difference to benefit claims as child maintenance is disregarded for means tested benefits. So it makes no difference to your taxes.

I like the idea of cohabiting for x about of time giving similar rights to marriage.

Why? People can and should make an active decision to enter into a legal contract where they combine their assets and liabilities. Defaulting into it is dangerous and unnecessary. As you say, it’s inexpensive to get married. Certainly far cheaper than having a child.

It’s worth looking into the reasons marriage rates are falling but trying to get round it by people ending up basically married instead of choosing it is not the answer.

Imagine the birth rate if only the ones who could actually afford it had them.

I could afford mine when I had them 10+ years ago. In that time house prices have doubled, rent is now 70% higher, petrol much more expensive. We qualified for tax credits then as well. There has been cut after cut to services and parents finding money to plug the gap.

Since then my wages have gone up by about £2000 a year.

I don’t think it’s marriage (or lack of) that’s putting people into poverty. I lay the blame firmly at house and land prices. Everything comes from that basic need.