Marriage before kids - crossroads

[SapphireAmi]

Hi all,

My partner and I have hit a crossroads. I’d like to marry before kids whereas he wants kids before marriage. I am 36 and he is 41 so time is not really on our side.

Here is our situation:
He has assets and earns £120,000 a year. Naturally he is cautious about that. If it was me, I’d perhaps feel the same. He also doesn’t believe in the system of marriage. His parents had a messy divorce. It’s a compromise that he’ll marry me but wants us to be a unit first with children.

I am on £60,000 a year, and have a doctorate with potential future career prospects. I have no assets but I do have savings. I was brought up with married parents and went to church until I was 10 so have Christian values (not religious now). I want marriage for emotional security and sign of commitment before children.

He works away abroad occasionally (4 days every 1-2 months). I travel 45 mins to work. He works at home for the rest of the time. If we had children, I expect in someways he would be primary caregiver in that he would have to take the kids to school/pick up etc due to the nature of my hours. If children are poorly, he’ll likely be working at home so can have them there too. When he’s away, I’ll be primary caregiver. We both have parents that are retiring soon and they’ll more than willing to help and support.

If things went wrong between us, I’d always have a place at home with my parents (and my children if need be). I am considering also in investing in an asset such as a flat to help my own security. We have also discussed me buying into the house but I don’t really understand that enough what with him owning the land (2.5 acres). I would never be able to afford 50/50 as it’ll be a £1 million worth house, so I wonder if another asset would be better for me. The house will however be mortgage free. I will just share bill paying while having enough spare money to continue to save.

Once the main house is built, he plans on having a lower income and a simpler lifestyle. He doesn’t consume as much as I do - all of his money goes on the house, some travel and food. I will then be the main breadwinner but he’ll have provided for us with a nice mortgage free house.

Any thoughts? I’m trying to get out of my own headspace/traditional values and to see if from his perspective. I’d appreciate hearing any of your thoughts.

I'd bet my house on you never marrying him, even if you have kids.

OK, I'm a man, with assets, so I'll stick my head above the parapet and get shot at!

I understand his feelings, he's worked hard for those assets, from a cold, hard business perspective marrying you is a massive financial gamble. And you have said it in one of your posts "if something goes wrong" - so the seed is already there, the thought that something could go wrong, which could cost him.

Its far from the case that its the man who always strays - I have a friend who was wiped out by his cheating wife, and we found out she had done it before and is doing it again.

Another friend, similar age to me (40's) was all loved up with a woman he met at work - and he'd have married her, he was besotted - she claimed to own her own home mortgage free etc. I was suspicious and did some background, turned out she had a conviction for domestic violence (beat her ex husband) the house was rented and she has subsequently be convicted of fraud.

Otherwise, sign a watertight pre-nup

No such thing assuming the OP lives in the UK

How do finances work currently and how does he propose that finances work once you have chidlren? Because right now, you are seriously disadvantagesd.

A few things to consider:

you SAY he'll do school runs and be primary caregiver, but has he agreed to that? In my experience, this is unlikely.

How will finances be covered while you are on maternity leave?

Has he considered the long term impact on your career if you take 1 or two maternity leaves?

As he is building up an asset, absolutely ou need the same - so can finances be worked so that you buy a property that you COULD live in should you need it, and rent it out in the meantime.

Who is going to pay for childcare? what will the split be?

Theh reality is that the ONLY way this can work with you feeling secure is that while you are together, you are both benefiting FINANCIALLY in the moment and LONG term so that there are fewer financial issues shoudl the relationshp break down. That means he needs to be a) paying a bigger proportion of costs while you are together and that b) you are both building up assets during the relationship that will translate into two homes down the line if necessary.

Thank you. So you wouldn’t marry someone either? But would still be wanting to commit and love them the same?

I hate to point out the bleeding obvious but even if you marry there are so many ways of ensuring that people do not get the assets in a divorce.
Family court has very little power, And they are loathed to use the powers that they actually do have to enforce anything be that child access and division of assets.

I do Think people put far too much weight on marriage being security it really is not.

He won’t marry you after you have kids.

So, only have kids with him if you wouldn’t mind being a single parent doing most of the childcare, inevitably slowing your own career progression to accommodate that, and only entitled to child maintenance (no split of assets without marriage and divorce).

I can see both sides and to be honest having a child is a bigger commitment than marriage, so I would not worry too much as any potential divorces are costly for both parties in the end. If marriage is important to you and he agrees to marry after the first baby is born, I would not see it as an issue. But by all means, keep your career, make sure he arranges childcare, keep your savings as yours and only yours, maybe in the end it is you who wins from the current arrangement. To me having a child together, my own career and money are way more important than marriage though of course it would be nice to be married one day! Also one priority at a time, having children when you still can should probably be one for you two atm.

Sure sure, whatever. The reality however, is that in most cases, the woman is financially disadvantaged by having children. She loses income, she loses pension, she loses opportunities. Too often, at the same time, she is contributing too much fiancially proportionally, meaning that she is not building up assets as rapidly as he is.

And then, when they divorce, she' sleft with the children and is struggling while he pays minimum CMS and continues to live a good life.

I have no problem with people protecting their assets. But a) it shouldn't actively disadvantage the other person and b) the long0term needs of children need to be accomodated.

He has no intention of marrying you.

There is no way I would have had DC without marriage. No way. I know one couple for whom not marrying has not been a problem - but 6 I can think of where it has been a very big problem for the woman.

However justified anyone thinks he might be in refusing to marry, bullshitting about it to try and persuade OP to have a child is inexcusable.

Prenups will generally be followed in the UK providing various safeguards are in place. Protecting inherited assets like a farm would be seen as reasonable.

I accept they can’t be made ‘watertight’ though.

lordslibrary.parliament.uk/law-relating-to-prenuptial-agreements/

Yes it's possible for either the man or the woman to cheat, but you must admit that it's far, far more common for the woman to be the resident parent after a split, and trying to juggle childcare, work etc while the man sees them for a few days a month. This is why women need the protection of marriage.

In my experience, if a man resists marriage, he's just not that in to you.

OP, at a practical level, if he doesn't want to marry I'd simply just look at finances and make sure you are NOT disadvantaged. So 100% invest in an asset. 100% agree that as he earns significantly more and will not be the one on maternity leave, he has to contribute significantly more towards the costs you share. Do NOT fall into the "proportional" trap either: ie where he earns double so you pay 1/3 and he pays 2/3 of joint expenses. Becuase on that basis, he will still have SIGNIFICANTLY more money than you to save or invest. So make sure that costs are split in a way that you are directly benefiting and can build up your OWN asset/savings base.

Be 100% clear in advance about responsibilities and that, especially while you're building up your career, he has to step up to be primary parent.

He only wants to be with you if you can provide a child. He sees marriage as a risk, because aside from the assets, what if you then can't have children? It would have been a waste of him marrying you. Far better to make sure you do provide him children, then he can leave his assets to them.

Having a child is not a bigger commitment for men, thats who so many fathers walk out on their kids and only see them every other weekend. The vast majority of risk and commitment when having a child, is on the woman.

We bave two kids, been together for 20 years and have never married. I am quite happy with this, our finances are separate but we pay 50 50. I get the whole security thing, but honestly it never mattered to me.
He actually would want to marry, but I am not that bothered and we are older parents. I can stand on my own two feet and don't need or want the financial ties with someone else.
I think our relationship is actually stronger for not being married, knowing that either one of us can easily walk away but choose not to is a good thing in our relationship.
I am also not religious so I don't feel like there is pressure from that side of things either

Having a child with someone puts you in a terribly vulnerable position.

Your career will be hit (his optionally will - my ex's actually grew, because suddenly he expected me to do everything at home 'since I was there with the kids', whereas mine floundered, as I had to freelance around the children. I went from out-earning him, to him earning 5x what I do (and I earned well!)

You will be tied to him, and that location forever, as you will be prevented from moving away with the child (or to stay close to the child if he has the majority of the custody)

You don't sound like you're sure he will be taking on that childcare though - I know my ex made the right noises, but when it came down to it, suddenly he decided he couldn't take the kids to school.

Sure, he's guarding his assets. You are guarding your life don't have a child with this man until you are married.

He may give you a ring and you can say your engaged - but that's meaningless.

DSis first ex did that - she got pg and he was gone immediatley - they'd bought a house together so he couldn't kick her out or she him and he brought his new GF back to the house - took ages to sell and did a number on Dsis.

He rarely paid mainatance - and would have DN then drop her randomly at Diss door - so she could never do or plan anything - and when a neighbour of Dsis when she was out threaten to report he dumped DN at our parents house so they spent years thinking they could never go out before they were housebound by ill health. DN though sun shone out his backside for years as well depite his bad treatment - only woke up in mid teen years.

Father of her second it was buying a house together - never happened and he's been an arse round child as well frequently not turning up to pick child up despite promises.

I know many other parents who co-parent really well together - but promises in future with always a reason not to happen - IMO not a good sign.

If he’s not ready to marry you why does he think having children with you is less of a commitment? Because he knows he can walk away with his assets and leave you with the kids if he feels like it. The only reason I’d say in your circumstance for having children first is if you didn’t want to delay TTC whilst trying to arrange the wedding. Even then I’d rather do a quick marriage and then have children and have a proper wedding later.

As PPs have said, I wouldn't do it. It is easy for posters to state that it is okay long as things are 50/50 but really if you split up, our society expects you to do the lions share and it is socially accepted for a man to do very little.

I can see you've stated he will do much of the childcare as he works from home but once he realises how hard this is to do, he may refuse.

I see you've mentioned 50/50 finances, would this be expected from you on maternity leave? Would you need to take time off work when he works away? What if Grandparents become too ill to help out? What if your partner dies? Can you afford 50% of all childcare costs whilst also paying 50% of bills?

I do have a partner, as it happens she has a bit more than me, both very secure - we are very committed, but neither of us want to be married yet - no children, she can't have any sadly due to very early menopause in her early 30's, maybe one day, but its just not important at the moment.

I hope it works out for you, I think the love, the family is more important and the marriage may come, but if you have the rest does it matter?

If he isn’t willing to get married before having children then he will probably stall the wedding idea everytime you mention it.

getting married before having children was a dealbreaker for me, I’ve seen too many people have child after child and before you know it 20 years have passed and there is no marriage, it’s not for me, commitment to me first then we think about having children.

Having children isn't going to make him believe in, "the system of marriage". What is it he doesn't believe in? Sharing? All that I have I give to you? Monogomy?

Does he think that after you have children he'll have an easier life, lower income and you'll be the main breadwinner living in his house on his land?

Seems easy and low risk for him. Fraught and unfair for you.

Does love come into it anywhere?