Marriage before children.. ??

[1982mommaof4]

Reading another thread has made me wonder.. the people who say they must be married before having children, why?

Is this mostly down to religious beliefs?

Interested to know peoples reasons for this.

Nope, it’s mostly down to how badly you can be let down if the relationship breaks down after you’ve had a career break due to Maternity leave and you’re not married.

I'd imagine that, for many women, it is partly a financial security issue.

For financial security, women who don’t get married before having children can sometimes end up very vulnerable in the event of a split.

Stability and finances more than anything.

For me it just felt the right order to do things in. Children are the biggest commitment so if he won't marry then he isn't the right one to have kids with. Well that was my thinking anyway. Turns out the first husband was Dickhead but that's a separate issue.

Plus I wanted my children to be "legitimate". Out if 9 children on both sides only my 3 are legitimate and if any of the grandparents die without a will I can see it causing a whole load of problems legally.

It’s strongly recommended to be married if the woman plans to take a career break to raise the children. Without marriage if the relationship breaks down then the woman is left with no income of her own and less earning potential.

Its less important to be married if the woman intends to return to work full time after maternity leave, but in this scenario it’s very important to make sure iron clad wills are in place for if one partner dies.

Ah okay, so what happens if the marriage ends and one partner is SAHP. Does the working partner have to provide?

It's down to the finances really. If you plan to be a stay at home mum, or work a lot fewer hours, marriage means you are entitled to assets if you separate. If you already own property or other assets and stay working full time in a higher paid job than your significant other, marriage may mean you need to pay them off if you separate. Never give up work if you are unmarried and just trust that they would see you right.

I get what PPs are saying. But then the issue is marriage or no marriage at all, not marriage before children. That makes it sound like a shame/decency matter.

As in, if after children you then get married, it's not an issue. The 'issue' only arises if marriage is never on the cards.

For me initially it was religious and traditional values. Looking back I was glad to have some quality married time before having children, and a child free wedding and honeymoon.

It's about financial and legal arrangements.

It's less of an issue if the woman is taking a short maternity leave, owns her own property/half the joint property, has her own pensions which she will keep paying into and will be returning to work.

If a woman is taking a long maternity leave, a career break, changing jobs in a way that greatly reduces her warning potential, going part time, and anything else that means she takes on a lot of valuable domestic responsibilities that helps her partner maintain his career, then marriage makes a difference in terms of security.

A good man would not expect a woman to give up her career progression, financial independence, earning potential, and pension without ensuring legally things were arranged to account for the way she is contributing to the household.

It's foolish and naive for a woman to place herself in a vulnerable position based on nothing more than trust that her partner will be a nice guy if they split.

For me it was financial security, but also as DH is not British I wanted a formal legal recognition of our relationship.
If civil partnerships had been an option for us at the time we might have chosen that instead.
Religious reasons irrelevant to us.

For me it was a few reasons.

1. financial security if I became a SAHP and anything happened to him
2. I wanted to
3. making a commitment to building our family together
4. legal status

For him we also had to add in some inheritance issues that were a bit less complicated if his children were born in wedlock.

For me the primary reason was that if we aren't willing to commit to each other, we shouldn't be having children together.

At the time the financial and legal benefits didn't come to mind (as I didn't consider anything other for the above reason) but now I understand them better I would strongly encourage people to be married before having children. Relationship breakdowns are horrible whatever the circumstances, but I've seen the horrible outcomes of breakdowns where they weren't married and the parent who took a pay cut / stopped working / took a break from working / refused promotions or training opportunities so they could focus on parenting ends up financially worse off - likely a hit they will carry forever, right up to when they receive their pension.

Well yes, that is exactly why the financial arrangements and what is appropriate maintenance and division of assets cause so much pain.

For me it was fairly simple- I was only prepared to have a child with a man who was so sure that he wanted to be with me for the rest of our lives that he was willing to say so in front of witnesses and have it legally documented. Without that I simply would not have felt secure enough to have a child with him and I wasn’t interested in single parenting.

Yes I know that for some people their partner just telling them that they are 100 committed, or buying a house together, is good enough, but it wasn’t for me. I also know that divorces happen. But it felt like the safest bet.

Had absolutely zero to do with societal expectations and I was/am financially independent

"illegitimate" children have had the same inheritance rights as legitimate ones since 1987. You just have to prove parentage and a birth certificate will do that.

It just seemed like a nicw thing to do, we’d still have done it if marriage didn’t have any legal bits, we’re not in it for that, we just like knowing we’re married and enjoying belonging to each other.

I'm Not particularly religious but I wanted a man to marry me...for me...not because I was the mother of his children and therefore felt certain obligations towards me

I wanted to be a family unit all with the same name

To me it represents a higher level of commitment and stability

Lots of women can be someone's girlfriend. Not many - one hopefully - can be someone's wife and I wanted someone to see me that way

It felt the "right" order to do things

I don't "judge" unwed parents but I wouldn't have wanted to be one

(I earned a lot more than my ex husband by the way so financially there was zero gain or legal protection from being married. In fact it actually made me more vulnerable in that sense)

Marriage is ultimately a legal contract that is useful in the event things don't work out. When kids are involved you don't want to take chances (either partner). Many people don't like the idea of marriage, eg it's patriarchal roots but it's just really a legal contract.

Why are people having children with someone who wouldn't 'do them right?' I get this might happen occasionally, but that must be quite rare that a woman is blindsided?

People change. All the time. Humans are messy, complicate, joyful and horrific. Always best to have a legal marriage to protract yourself.

Good point with having the same name, I remember feeling really uneasy having a different name to my whole family

I wanted to ensure I could claim on his pension in the event of divorce knowing I would work very part time and over the long term there'd be a huge pension gap to raise the children. I wanted the commitment from him that having children doesn't bring to men. As you can see on here, plenty of men have kids but refuse to marry because they actually see marriage as a greater commitment than kids.

I think what's difficult though is if your clock is ticking and a man says he'll have kids with you but doesn't believe in marriage. I can see why people prioritise their fertility and hope to come back to the marriage conversation later.

I was brought up to believe you get married and have children so for me it was important though I don't judge others that are not married before having kids. It also gives added financial security, more protection for my kids if something happens to one of us the other parents automatically gets custody and ensures if one of us dies the other is financially secure. I wanted us all to have the same surname which wouldn't have happened as had we not been married the kids would have had mine and DH his own. To me having kids is a bigger commitment than getting married so I wanted the marriage as a commitment first.