What are the risks of having children without getting married?

[Meadow48]

My fiancé and I have lived together for 3 years, we have been engaged for 2. He has recently informed me that he would want a religious marriage but no legal ceremony. So we will be married in the eyes of god however not the law.
I believe this comes following his uncles divorce, who sadly ended his own life 5 years ago following a messy divorce that left him broke and unable to see his children.
I would not mind this, however I am unaware of the risks in this. We plan on having children soon, and I plan to always work (I am a teacher).
What are the risks of essentially cohabiting with children?

The risk is that life doesn’t always go to plan. Your DC may be disabled in a way which means you have to go part time or give up work all together. You may develop ill health which means you can no longer work. After having a child even if you continue to work full time and strive for promotion etc you may still be discriminated against and your career may fall behind. Your partner on the other hand may benefit from the increased pay and opportunities which fathers often end up getting and his career may surge ahead.

Your partner may die and it turns out that he has left everything to someone else than you or your children and there will be nothing you can do. If you were married you could contest the will and with dependent children would almost certainly be successful.

Who owns the house?

Basically 100% of relationships end, whether through break up or death. Marriage protects in both instances.

What he is asking for makes no sense. You either get married or you don't. If he doesn't want to get married, you can enter into a civil partnership.

Either way, it is invariably the woman who takes the potentially life-ruining risks when she has children with a man without the benefit of marriage (or civil partnership).

The Motherhood Penalty is very real. Look it up. Women face potential financial ruin when they have children. It's the fathers who can pick and choose how much time they spend, child support they pay, so effectively they can continue with their lives and career choices uninterrupted. Mothers can't. They are the ones saddled with the majority burden of parenting.

Of course he may turn out to be a model father who embraces teamwork and financial sharing, does his full bit in the parenting burden, takes time off when a child is sick, willingly pitches in so that you both have equal access to time, money and fulfilling each of your lives goals. But make no mistake that this scenario is rare. VERY rare.

Think carefully and discuss it with him. If necessary write a mutually agreeable contract. Make sure you are both going into the future with eyes wide open.

My partner does, however I own a property which is rented out currently.

It depends really. If you have more assets, savings and a higher income than your partner then nope don't even think about getting married. If the opposite is true then you are putting yourself at risk financially not being married as if you split then you aren't 'entitled' to anything even though you are more likely as a woman to drop hours at work etc after having a child. There are also other considerations but marriage invariably is more beneficial for one party than the other financially unless you happen to be completely equal. Things like the house can be equal via other means.

It doesn't protect if you're bringing healthier finances into the marriage and then split.

"He has recently informed me that he would want a religious marriage but no legal ceremony. So we will be married in the eyes of god however not the law."

Red flags a flying here. You need to be also married according to English Civil Law. You have very few legal protections otherwise.

This is a relationship I would no longer want to remain a part of given his attitude. Have seen such go badly wrong at first hand and its usually the woman who comes off worse, not just to say financially.

But this can change so easily. When I married DH I earned more and had better career prospects. I also had a wealthier family with likely significant inheritance in the future. According to MN I shouldn’t have married him. 10 years on I have only just rejoined the workplace in a very part time low wage job after a mental health breakdown in 2020. I have cut off my family as they were the cause of the breakdown so no inheritance anymore. DH on the other hand has done incredibly well in his career.

If you do not marry legally then you need to ensure other legal safeguards are in place.

Your name on the deeds of any properties
Shared access to finances
Named beneficiary on pensions/insurances

www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-sep-dec-2017/financial-rights-of-unmarried-couples-living-together/#

The fact that he is stating he's not willing to legally marry you because he's seen a family member have to share finances in a divorce and it having a bad effect on them does suggest that he wouldn't be willing to share finances in the event your relationship doesn't last.

This is someone you want to have children with, shouldn't you be confident that if the relationship were to break down he would WANT to ensure you leave the relationship financially able to support his and your children?

Do the maths, if you have more assets and a higher income then it might be in your favour not to marry but personally i would be wary about entering into a religious marriage with someone so concerned about breakup that her doesn't want a legal marriage! Remember in some countries that religious marriage is recognised as marriage so he would have preferential rights over any children. Be wary, in the U.K. it's only a marriage if legally married, if you want to be married before having children I would insist on it

He has just told you that he has no intention of being in a financial team with you. Marraige is a legal contract which gives both parties rights and obligations and creates pooling of assets. If push comes to shove he will keep his money and all assets which are in his name and you can make do with whatever you can earn while being primary carer of your future children.

He wants a "traditional" lifestlye and to look respectable in his community by been seen to be entering into a marraige. But he is not willing to take on the legal responsibilty that comes along with the marraige.

For you that ^ should be a massive red flag

Looking after children is a full time job.
Even split between two parents and purchased child care there will be times when one of you will have to take time off work.
And your current career is time inflexable.
From your point of view you cant take a day off during term time if one of the children are sick. You cant just walk out of a class to pick up your sick child from childcare etc etc.

Is he going to commit to getting a job which allows him to manage regular childcare and emergencies?

Is he religious eg does he attend church regularly, pray etc?

The opposite is also true, yes again it's a risk but invariably women are advised they should marry to protect themselves because its assumed they are lesser financially than the man. Even with the vulnerability following having children ie more likely to decrease hours etc there isn't a one size fits all best choice from a soulless logistical and financial point of view. Its important women really look into marriage and the implications of as well as the potential benefits. A lot of men certainly do.

@Meadow48
if in the Uk a legal marriage intermingles finances and all assets owned are then seen as share. Depending on the length of the marriage and upon divorce the courts will divide or allow for division of assets according to Section 25 categories for example need, contribution, etc.

The assets of the marriage are cash, money in bank accounts, pensions, properties, stocks and shares, business(es) etc. Look at Form E which is a document that couples fill in to declare assets when they get divorced - so that the assets can be shared.

if a couple have children and are married, provision for the children is a first priority under those Section 25 categories.

if not getting married, will the person sacrificing career to look after the children (or taking the bigger share) get paid to do so by the other and have their pension contributions paid in just like a job?

in your situation, how would not getting married spare your partner from the potential risks of you splitting up, not seeing the children and committing suicide? Their logic for not getting married Is that it will avoid these risks?

No way would I have children with a man who would not marry me

It depends, if you have equal / better assets & pension, stay unmarried.

The risk of having children without being married is that one partner can at any point walk away.

When they walk away if they are not married, in theory they have to contribute a (small) amount of money towards bringing up the children, but in practice if they have a good accountant/can not work due to savings etc they don't have to contribute anything.

So the risk is that you have multiple children and then they walk away and never have to help again and you have to bring them and up and pay for everything they need for the rest of their lives with no financial help.

If you are rich enough that this isn't a problem then no risk.

So he's protecting the house then?

Followup question: I assume he's Muslim, because AIUI all religious Jewish and Christian marriages in the UK are also legal marriages?
If so, it is highly likely that many overseas countries would see you as married and some would see your children as his property.

The risk to you is minimal OP if you are always able to work, always able to afford to support yourself and any future DC, provide yourself/them with housing and won't be reliant on your DH's income for any of that.

The risk generally is that women who have DC often take a step back from their careers, going PT or giving up work altogether because it can be so hard and exhausting to juggle work with caring for DC and the burden of childcare falls disproportionately on women. This is something that is particularly common in families with one or more DC with disabilities or SENs as those DC can need a lot of support and medical appointments that restrict (usually the mother's) ability to work. The thing is that you won't know whether your DC fall into that category until you have them, by which point you'll have already missed the boat to have them within the protective confines of marriage.

Why is marriage protective? Because as long as you're married for longer than a year or two the starting point for the split of assets upon divorce is 50:50, ensuring that the parent who's given up their career to care for the DC (and often thereby facilitating the career of the partner who continues to work FT and earn more), is not penalised.

He saw his uncle Lise some assets in a divorce and now he doesn't want a legal commitment with you. Not really marriage material is he? If he won't commit to you why would you think he will commit to any DC he has? He sounds flaky to me. I wouldn't have DC without marriage first. I know not all marriages last but if they break up the DC get more protection. By refusing a legal marriage he is basically saying he doesn't want any DC you have together to be financially protected.

@Meadow48 It’s a really good idea to imagine yourself at various stages of life and to think financially about various scenarios - and how you would cope financially if married/not married with children.

For example, at 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80.
If he dies, you split, you stay together, either of you fall ill/become disabled or debilitated and cannot work…

Do a risk assessment

Look after the person you are, and will become financially - protect her and mitigate risks.

In a best case scenario you would both protect yourselves and each other and be fair. This would involve taking care of the ‘business deal’ / financial aspect of the marriage as much or in a par to the love aspect.

I see a faith is involved and a preference for marriage in the eyes iof God. This then would / does also involve daily / very regular prayer with him about financial wisdom, protection and guidance - and the seeking out of qualified financial advisors to help you protect each other financially in the absence of a legal marriage?

The uncle is a red herring. He wants to protect his assets. Do not have kids with this man without a legal marriage.

Do not do this. You need the legal protection of a proper marriage ceremony in law.