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?

Childcare costs are a scandal. It depends how you look at it, I think a more right wing / Tory leaning person would view more adequate subsidy of the childcare system as a handout, for irresponsible people who expect others to pay for their family planning choices.

A lefty may see it as an investment in people (usually, but not always, Mothers) to help them through a relatively short period of maybe 4-6 years on average of their lives, so they dont have to completely give up their careers, or struggle enormously with a monthly bill which equals or exceeds their mortgage.

I receive 85% of my childcare costs back via Universal credit, this will be the case in total for 3 years of my life, then i'll go back to being the net contributor to the economy i always was before. Its also worth mentioning that the money i pay to the nursery isnt just gone forever, it goes back into circulation, it goes towards the tax the nursery pay, the wages of their staff, the local economy that makes up their supply chain etc etc.

Its so unfair that married and cohabiting couples dont get the same help that i do as a single mum.

Anyway I have just realised this isnt at all answering the OP (oops), although I suppose it does really, if childcare was less ridiculous, more of these single parents could go to work or increase their hours.

@Bigballer

I don't believe child poverty is a problem in this country, lazy and selfish patents are the problem You get £20 a week child benefit, that is more than enough to clothe and feed a kids. Obviously if the patents priorities are on other things it is not enough. Plus there is plenty work out there if you are willing to work.

Thanks i needed a laugh this morning

£20 a week clothe and feed kids.

Have you met a teenager?

How are you keeping them warm and housing them?

You get £20 a week child benefit, that is more than enough to clothe and feed a kids

With what, that magical MN chicken that feeds a family of 5 for a week?

But I agree that marriage is not the main issue. Yes, of course you are in a better position if you are a married SAHM versus and unmarried one. But if your DH decides to walk out, it's still not great from financial perspective. Much easier if you're financially independent. The expectation that women should only aspire to part time little minimum wage jobs to fit around childcare, that's the issue.

@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

It costs £150 to get married in a register office. Somebody on benefits could save up to do that in a year.

@takeasadsongandmakeitbetter

We chose to buy a house before children rather than get married - we couldn't afford all 3 but very comfortably afford our house and child

We don't really believe in marriage either

You couldn't afford 150 quid?

Pre-pandemic I assumed unmarried parents were either uninformed or uncommitted. Now I guess the venue must have cancelled during the pandemic. I do think that there will be a lag of unprotected women who would otherwise have had the support structure of marriage were it not for Covid.

Particular silent judging for unmarried parents who give the child the man’s surname.

It’s always saddens me with discussions around poverty, benefits etc that there is never any mention of disability, and given nearly half of everyone in poverty is either disabled or has a disabled child it’s a huge, huge issue and yet it’s always assumed it’s ‘lazy benefit scroungers’ or people having kids they can’t afford that’s the problem.

Many families can not get childcare for their disabled child even if they could afford to pay the same as everyone else. If a child needs 121 support then you are screwed. So far I’ve lost 4 years of being able to work. Was I meant to have 4+ years of savings to make sure I could afford a child without state support, incase this happened?
I can get part time childcare, term time only (basically entitled to statutory hours). what kind of job am I meant to get with that? But even if there was, how much difference would that kind of pay make to poverty statistics anyway.

There is always so much generalisation, stereotyping and misogyny that happens with these types of discussion and it’s so often the fault of women that children are in poverty. Despite the fact it’s irresponsible fathers and a broken system that are fundamentally letting down these children.

I think ridiculous house prices and rents are a major factor much more than not being married.

@StarCat2020

I think ridiculous house prices and rents are a major factor much more than not being married.

I genuinely believe everything comes from that

Childcare costs - they’ve got to pay for the building, staff have to earn enough to live somewhere (although for some that seems a questionable amount).

There’s been huge pressure on business rents now business premises can easily be turned to housing. So they’ve gone from not much value to matching house price value.

Some of the posts in this thread are downright appalling

NI number is a good idea and the cohab with children given the same or similar increasing protection after a set time is another good one.

I think part of the problem is for tax credits etc you have to claim as if you were a married couple, it's based on a joint claim etc so I think it gives people a false sense of security "if the dwp have us down as living together it's as good as common law marriage.
I dont think enough education is given around the legalities of marriage. I know I didnt think about them I just wanted the dress etc.

I think that having children should automatically tie you up more financially even if you aren't married. It would mean that men would be more careful about using contraception or ensuring that they are with someone they want to raise a family with and would even out the responsibility more. I have witnessed so many women lose out so much. Ie. I think there should be such a thing as common law wife. (And the other way round)

I like the idea of cohabiting for x about of time giving similar rights to marriage.
No thank you - what if I want to live with someone but not to share my assets? If something would happen to DH, I might want to live with someone just for convenience and companionship, but I have no intention to share my assets with anybody else, those are for my children. I would need to get 'non-married' then? Getting married is very simple and easy, just a piece of paper, as you often hear.

I think that law changes would protect the vulnerable. But I can’t see the current UK government making these people a priority.
In NZ , cohabiting couples are covered by law and properly is classed as relationship property after 3 years. I think this is the best way to protect families from slipping into poverty.
It’s the way people live now and I think laws need to adapt.

I think that law changes would protect the vulnerable.
Sorry but it would make no sense.

If you want the security of marriage, get married.

@metalkprettyoneday

I think that law changes would protect the vulnerable. But I can’t see the current UK government making these people a priority. In NZ , cohabiting couples are covered by law and properly is classed as relationship property after 3 years. I think this is the best way to protect families from slipping into poverty. It’s the way people live now and I think laws need to adapt.

It would certainly be the best way to ensure I never cohabit.

I was married with my children. Still broke up.

I actually got married in part due to MN giving me the fear. Now, because of the marriage, I'm financially fucked and will be for some years... My family paid for the house and I can't afford to buy him out (nor can they, because they paid for my house!). So I am stuck married to someone I've not been in a relationship with for years, as I can't afford a guaranteed angry divorce.

Getting married has (will) cost me around £150k I don't have and won't have. It has destroyed my long term financial stability. And Ex pays nothing anyway - CMS can't/don't/won't enforce (despite employer, ni number, full name and address).

Common law spouse would just mean I never cohabit again in my life. Surely wouldn't always work anyway! There are plenty like me, seperated but not divorced. What would my common law spouse try and claim from me on our split? My bloody husband has the first claim already. Perhaps they could have 50/50 each (husband and common law spouse) while I got nothing...

I actually got married in part due to MN giving me the fear. Now, because of the marriage, I'm financially fucked and will be for some years... My family paid for the house and I can't afford to buy him out (nor can they, because they paid for my house!). So I am stuck married to someone I've not been in a relationship with for years, as I can't afford a guaranteed angry divorce.

You made a huge life decision based on, in part, MN and its not even what most posters would advise.

If you read MN enough for it to give you the fear. You would realise MNers generally advise getting married if you have no independent money and are giving up work and a career to care for children. Especially when living in a house that's only in the partners name.

And they would also suggest ring fencing any money paid by family into a home.

In a situation where one person's parents have bought the house and that person would be giving up work to care for kids, most would say that you need legal advice before getting married.

I have never seen anyone advise someone to get married for their own protection when they own a house outright before marriage.

Or did your ex give up work? Again, mners might say if one is giving up work assets shouldn't be shared. But as the one whose family paid for the house, that wasnt for YOUR protection. That was for your exs.

@metalkprettyoneday

I think that law changes would protect the vulnerable. But I can’t see the current UK government making these people a priority. In NZ , cohabiting couples are covered by law and properly is classed as relationship property after 3 years. I think this is the best way to protect families from slipping into poverty. It’s the way people live now and I think laws need to adapt.

Who do you mean by Vulnerable?

Do you mean people who have chosen to cohabit without a legal agreement in place?

What about the people who would be made 'vulnerable' by these 'common law' relationships?

Relationships aren't guaranteed to last either way. So many times on MN marriage is touted as the answer - and of course there as we're some legal advantages - but in the event of a split where men move on remarry, have another family, enforced payments are minimal. I think it gives some people a false sense of security.

I think women need to be more aware of the pitfalls of giving up work. I'm not bashing SAHMs at all, everyone should do their own risk assessment, but women need to be aware of the risks in the first place to do that.

Theres little point in marriage if you have fuck all to protect or leave each other

Yup. You are right.
Men walking away from their children and paying only what they are absolutely forced to pay and avoiding paying anything if at all possible contributes heavily to child poverty.

If you as a couple own a house and are married the person left with the kids might get to stay in the house or at least a chunk of the equity to start again. If you're renting and can't pay the rent on your own you're shit out of luck, married or not. Marriage only helps here if there was money to start with.

@StarCat2020

I think that law changes would protect the vulnerable. Sorry but it would make no sense.

If you want the security of marriage, get married.

As lots of people on this thread are showing, the partner with more money/assets often doesn't want to, but when co-habiting without civil partnership or marriage, one partner is often making lots of very valuable but non-monetary contributions (e.g. most of women, SAHM or SAHD in the context of childcare and other household things). None of that gets taken into account when partners aren't married and only co-habit.

Appreciate it may not make sense in many situations, but it could be a solution that would protect a larger % of women and children.