Fiancé just told me he no longer wants to get married?

[LittleCactus]

I'm so confused. Been engaged 4 years (to the day, in fact) and he. Just told me he doesn't want to get married a anymore. Doesn't see the point and thinks it's too much faff/expense if it all goes to pot. He still wants to be with me, apparently, but not as a married couple. I love the idea of marriage and have always envisioned myself being someone's wife.
What would you do?

Little Cactus needs to establish what her legal rights are so she can try to re-balance the power in this relationship. It seems he's taking her for granted.
However, in his heart of heart, he probably knows he ought to do the right thing.

This is I think where we are:
1 He seems to want to have his cake and eat it. He loves Little Cactus but appears to enjoy control of the purse strings in the house and likes being free of the commitment of marriage (big hmmph);
2 He knows he led LC on and probably knows she would not have had his child and be living with him if it weren't for the promise of marriage;
3 He thought he'd test the water and say he doesn't want to get married because he's a little bit scared of the commitment and enjoys the fact that he has ownership of the house currently
4 He doesn't seem to recognise or appreciate LC's sacrifices. Most of those are not financial but if we just look at it financially for now, then LC probably ought to talk about going back to work full time and working out the cost of the wrap-around care which might need to come from a nanny or child minder (nurseries don't usually open long enough). This nanny might well need to be paid more than LC would earn and the hit would need to be shared 50/50 between them.

5 He has not thought through HIS (financial) alternatives if she leaves him, namely having to cover all the mortgage and bills, housekeeping and 50% of the childcare costs.

6 If she left, wouldn't he miss his child? Miss her? How would he feel about becoming a part-time dad? If you add to that the possibility that she might have some stake in the house (legally or morally) which would force him to buy her out or sell the house, then it's not looking very attractive. Or act appallingly, cut her off and be shunned by everyone...

LC needs to re-balance the power in this relationship. Please get to a solicitor to find out your rights. Until then, I think it's sensible to make no further contribution to the mortgage. Having taken legal advice, explain to the boyfriend that you would not have made any of the sacrifices made without the promise of marriage, not least having his child.

If he refuses to marry, then only YOU can decide whether to carry on living with him and on what conditions - i.e. whether that's paying any money towards mortgage/bills; getting your name on the deeds as JT or TIC. If you want to stay for ever together then go for JT now. No matter what, the childcare bills should be paid for in a split which reflects the sacrifice you are making to your own career by going part time.

@Cel119 the world is FULL of women who trusted their partner, but were let down. Best not to be naive about that. It could happen to anyone

Is your partner on the birth certificate of your child? If not, he doesn't have any parental responsibility and possibly no rights either so it can work both ways...

You've put some money towards the house since you moved in together, but it appears not as much money as your fiance.

Out of interest, how much would you have spent on your own accommodation, ie renting or paying your own mortgage and bills, if you hadn't been living with him for 4 years.

My point is that you would have been paying someone ££££ rent during the last 4 years, so you would have had to spend that money anyway. Your name isn't on the deeds and you're not married so currently have no claim to his house.

He would have to pay you maintenance if you split up. Does he currently pay equal shares for your child together?

Do you want to be with him? He sounds a bit unreliable if he hasn't managed to say anything about not getting married until now, and has also changed his mind already. He wants his cake and eat it.

He doesn't really sound like someone you could make any long term plans with.

Keep quiet and marry this deceiving cunt asap. He may well have scuppered your relationship with this, but you can decide that with a ring on your finger and some financial security.

But would she have had a child if she hadn't lived with him for 4 years?

Probably not.

Or she might have had one with someone who was actually prepared to commit to her.

Take him up on this. You need the legal protection, so do it with just the two of you if required.

It doesn’t really matter why he’s changed his mind, as if the net result either way is that you will split up in future, it sounds like you would be better off having been married first.

When now DH and I bought our first house, we werent married and had no children and all the deposit was my money from savings I'd established before we were together. We bought the house as tenants in common (he wasnt on the mortgage due to zero hours contract at the time) which meant that in the event we sold the house or split up, the first £20k (my deposit) came to me (the logic being this money was saved before our relationship and therefore wasn't fair if he had a claim on it), and then whatever was left over after that £20k was split 50/50 between us. He didn't contribute a penny to the mortgage but contributed to the household bills as a percentage of his earnings in line with mine (i've always been a much higher earner than him). I set it up this way because we both agreed it was fair, protected his investment in our joint life together whilst recognized I'd contributed the deposit and therefore would get that back in the event we split. This entire arrangement took about 25 minutes with a solicitor and cost less than £200 to do. Now DH and I are married, this arrangement is overidden and he now has a 50/50 claim on the house the same as I do. He does the majority of the childcare and house stuff while i work, so this is fair in our case.

If you give him the benefit of the doubt here and assume he didn't know you could be on the deeds and not on the mortgage, then the conversation is really simple: 'Hi DP, I've heard you about marriage and respect your decision, however if we're not going to get married then I want to change the way the house is registered to us being tenants in common, where the deal is in the event we split, you receive your deposit back but then any remaining equity is split between us 50/50'. If his response is anything other than an enthusiastic 'yes that's a great compromise as it protects us both', then 1) thank goodess you didnt marry this arsehole and 2) your response back is 'ok cool, well i'll be withdrawing all financial contributions from our joint funds from now on, separating our finances completely and not contributing a penny more towards your mortgage, and also eed to have a very long think if I want to stay in a relationship with someone who doesn't see me as a 50/50 partner'. Then get your ducks lined up and quacking and run for the blessed hills.

@Cel119

More fake history, from your posted quoted above. The following is utterly incorrect, when applied to the past as a whole.

"Let's not forget that not too long ago women were also not required to work unless they really desired to because it was possible for a family to marry, have a family and house on one wage. Call me anti feminist but I would dig that right now."

But perhaps you should remember that the notion of the 'family wage' only really came into being during the age of mass factory employment, ie during the Industrial Revolution. It is particularly associated with the era of peak Trade Union formation and activity. See: www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095809945

Before, during and after that period, married women worked, inside and outside the home. Let me copy what I said on a previous threat, a couple of days ago:

"Further back in time, to take just a few examples, poor married women (and children) worked in the fields to earn money for the family- weeding crops, picking fruit etc. Or else they spun thread or knitted stockings. Or worked as carers, cleaners etc. Farmers' wives kept hens and sold eggs and made butter and cheese for sale. Very rich women were married with legal settlements that entitled them to an annual sum of money to spend on themselves as they chose. (This was not equal treatement of course, because their husbands took over any capital assets they had on marriage.) There were alewives and baxters (female bakers). There were married women factory-workers and piece-workers. Famously, in 19th cent Dundee, women went out to work while their 'kettle-boiler' husbands stayed at home, because there was a greater demand for female than for male employees. There were also legal fictions that allowed married women with skills to trade independently, and earn money on their own account.

All this is not to say that women were treated fairly or equally with men - they certainly were not - but a great many wives in the past exercised independence and judgement and managed family spending on a day-to-day basis. And they were not confined to the home."

That thought process baffles me. Is it an old fashioned thought?

You can still get the legal protection without the faff and the expense. A registry office wedding takes about half an hour to arrange, half to do two weeks later, and costs cca £75.

You are in a very bad position, legally and financially. You don’t need a big party or a dress or a hen do. But if he won’t agree to sort the paperwork to keep you legally protected, I’d be ending the relationship here and now, and questioning his motives.

I’m so sorry.

This.
Get secure and worry about the romance latter…

You’ve already missed out on salary and career progression buy having a child, taking maternity leave and becoming a part-time worker - that is more than equal contribution to the family and household.

Yep take him up on it book it now, reassess the relationship when you’re in a position of security.

Book the registry office OP or Gretna green. Your tied to this man by your child for the rest of your life. Marriage is only positive for you at this point. Get your protection and then evaluate.

I would say I think you do still need to review your pension contribution and to work on a long term employment plan before anymore kids.

Pedant's corner: Gretna Green is a figure of speech these days, not a fast way to get married. It's probably slower than anywhere else, as so many couples want to marry there because of the name. The historical selling point was that underage couples could marry in Scotland without parental consent, which is no longer the case and irrelevant to adults anyway.

See also, Las Vegas! Now a byword for an expensive destination wedding 😂

@LittleCactus Now that he has changed his mind, book the first available slot at a local registry office. Don’t let him delay getting married for any stupid reasons like suddenly wanting a big party or stag/hen dos. Keep insisting that you want a small no frills wedding for the legal contract that marriage provides for you.

I suspect the reason for his sudden change of heart is because he has realised you are beginning to think about leaving him. You’ve already said you won’t pay anything further towards his mortgage which will affect him financially. He knows that you would be saving up for a deposit with your financial contribution so that you could move out and he wouldn’t see his child every day if this happens. Keep Plan B ready, in case he changes his mind again.

A lot of people just don't want the expense and being the centre of attention thst comes with a wedding.It may have been more about this than a case of not wanting to be married

If you really think he wanted to have an exit from beginning, why would you advise Op to further emotionally invest in that relationship by working on regaining trust?

I agree about the advice of Op going in work full time and getting him pay/ do 50% childcare.

Op is also doing majority of childcare and work part-time as they have a kid now. Had she not been living with him, she wouldn't have been reducing her income.

I agree with this - it seems a bit off or he could just have been trying to test you and see what he could get away with (still not great) and has now committed to marriage.

Ask yourself if you want to be with this man, if you don’t - walk and get full time work and split childcare costs proportionately.

If you do want to stick with him - get married. You could book a registry date a few months in the future and have a think about it in the lead up.

Although I do think it is better to marry before having kids you’ve already had one, so since you didn’t you may as well take a pause before you do this.

No need to panic and scramble for first available registry date IMO. if he changes his mind within the next few months before your registry date rolls around, it shows he was never committed or serious about it anyway.

I do agree - and childcare costs. Also, both may have wanted to have had the flexibility of one working part-time. I think this easily replaces a mortgage contribution.

But, my point was that he may not be taking that into consideration, and it may need explaining to him. Should he be so thoughtless? No, but he may be thoughtless rather than conniving and deceitful.

Marriage would definitely be sensible for the OP if both are committed to the relationship. If they aren't, there may be other ways to ensure financial security.

It would be a very immoral thing to e ter into a marriage whilst you thinking of divorcing later

Not nearly as immoral as letting a woman bear your children, giving her no financial security and saying, "Of course darling, I'll do right by you."

Some might say it’s immoral to enter into an engagement, then back out once the woman has had a child and changed her working hours to put her in a worse off position based on your promise of marriage.

One could also be said for telling a woman you want to marry her, having a child with her and financially benefiting from her when you actually have no intention of marrying her.