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 don't think he'll ever marry you. He has no intention of building a life together. He'll let you be a part of his life until it doesn't suit him anymore. He doesn't want to commit to you, or protect you. That isn't something I would tolerate.

I would think that he doesn't really want to get married or have children. His plan is his plan and you are kind of incidental. I would stop trying to convince him and just walk away.

If he's not ready to marry then how is he ready for a child? A child is arguably a bigger commitment and ties you to the other parent for at least the next 18 years.

Back to your original question, in your situation I would want to be married first. What happens for example if you have a disabled child who needs full time care? I imagine you would be the one to give up work to look after them. You could be left with no pension and no assets.

Then apart from the legal and financial side of things, there's also the emotional side. You want to get married. You want to tie your life to his. He doesn't. He wants to be able to quickly split up if it comes to it. I just don't think it sounds like you're on the same page and see your relationship the same way. Sorry.

Why is he not terrified you'd meet someone who did want to marry you? Because he's just not that into you. That is your reality. Once you've had the necessary son to inherit the farm he'll be susceptible to the 'one" and you'll be dumped in a flash - single parent, professional future stymied, finances broken, doing the bulk of child care while he trawls for the Love of his Life. Be under no illusions if you have daughters they likely won't count and he'll still be off. Go now, face the brutal truth and plan a life you want.

This I simply would not either

I would take this as he doesn't really love you (if he did, he would marry you, it's no skin off his nose), but he does want kids and you are the way of providing this.
I don't think he will marry you after.
And I wouldn't want to have kids with someone who doesn't care enough for me to marry me if it really made me happy.
If it's the financial side he is worried about, you could both sign a pre-nup (just make sure it's fair to you).

If he doesn't trust you enough to marry you, don't have kids with him.

He will not marry you after you have a child as he won't see the point, he'll have got what he wanted.

Seriously I would make this my red line, you need the protections of marriage before children you are just too financially vulnerable when you have a young child.

Quite frankly I hate this scrooge like greed some men have of wanting to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to kids and leaving their partners with nothing so they can hoard their own wealth. You should be equal partners! You will be very stuck if anything goes wrong and be at his mercy financially.

So his plan is to work now and put all his money into his house that he maintains control of and then cut back on his work and have you earn the money to spend to keep you both (and your children) - meaning you will be less able to build assets of your own? And he could, at any point, kick you out and you would have nothing? Does he expect to provide for his children (other than the roof over their head)? What does he think should happen during your maternity leave? What sort of pensions do you have? How much say do you have about your living situation and expenses? Have you both equally benefitted from living together? And do you want to live in the house he is so invested in building?

I can see why someone might not want to put themselves in a position where they could lose half their assets. Starting a marriage on a reasonably equal footing and building things up together is very different from coming together when you have very different financial situations. But I also see why you would not want to be in a position where you have children but can’t, for instance, house them if something goes wrong. I think there are ways to fairly develop financial security for both of you that doesn’t mean his assets are put at risk, the question is whether he is interested in pursuing that or whether he’s only interested in keeping what’s his and he doesn’t care how that impacts you.

You can have commitment and love without marriage. Marriage is the legal commitment. Not wanting to take that doesn’t mean you don’t love the other person.

I wouldn’t have kids without being married for obvious reasons but if kids weren’t in the equation, then marriage doesn’t really make sense.

Just to clarify:

He didn’t inherited his land from his family - he bought it through his own hard work and earnings. His grandfather had a farmer backgrounds. He isn’t a farmer himself.

When we discussed baby genders he mentioned he’d like a little girl.

I did say I’d have the children in my name if we had kids without marriage. He wasn’t keen on that.

I did say I’d have the children in my name if we had kids without marriage. He wasn’t keen on that.

Colour me shocked!

Yes what a shit person. This isn’t pre modern Japan with trial marriages to ascertain your fertility and worth.

I'm sure he was not keen on that either (i.e giving the child your surname rather than his). He is red flag central.

The man has future faked you and you ignore or minimise the many red flags a fluttering at your emotional peril. This man's attitude to marriage has been sullied by his parents experience and he does not want that for himself. Do not have a child by him!.

I would plan your exit now from this and rebuild your life.

Is he aware (and coming from a farming background, you'd assume he was) that having a girl isn't guaranteed?

His reaction to the putative child not having his name if you weren't married wasn't remotely predictable, eh?!

I did say I’d have the children in my name if we had kids without marriage. He wasn’t keen on that.

What a surprise - frankly for you own future convience if you do have kids register them youself and just put you down. He can get PR later though courts but if you split and he proves to a troublesome it makes your life easier till he does that.

I'd also insist on your surname - again it's a pain if they are different - even in todays schools DSis get called by her first kids surname. It can be an issue when going aboard in some places with different surnames ( seems to depend on who you encounter).

He sound like it's all about him and his wants- I think he sound less and less a good bet for you - but it's your choice.

Is he willing to compromise on ANYTHING? Honestly, you don't get to pick and choose which parts of "traditional" vs "modern" you want. If you have a baby and you're not married, of COURSE that baby should have your name. Twat.

Op you haven't answered how finances work currently or how he proposes to make it work once baby is here. Has this been discussed?

Its possible to make up for marriage with a variety of legal instruments but not completely. And it entirely depends on the good faith efforts and deep concern for the OP’s and children’s benefit that this man is refusing to display.

Wills can be rewritten. Pensions can be assigned elsewhere. Maternity and sick pay can be refused. Her labour will produce and support the family if necessity while his labour is invested in his sole asset (house and land) and he plans on withdrawing from the labour market and having her support him once he is ready? How can that ever be equitable?

So he wants you to compromise your beliefs for his finances - unless and until ( and maybe not even then) you produce an heir.

Throw this one back and get a wriggle on to another fish if you want Dc op.

ETA he’s also not really got your DC’s interests at heart. It’s still better on the whole for children to be legitimate at birth given no other issues ( eg potentially abusive father etc).

@HonestOpalHelper Gives an interesting perspective.
But the inverse of this is also true. Women are disadvantaged financially when they have a child, and it sets them back years in earnings & pension savings. Many even give up their careers to raise children - and often on their partner, the main earners, promise that they’ll look after them. The reality is that just because you can’t easily put a £ value on the loss a woman incurs when she has a child, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

I think it sounds like your friends are unfortunate examples which is something the men tune into. But the reality is there is risk on both sides, and that’s why pre-nups are sensible.

If you do go ahead with his plan, and lots would and do, or even if you're just discussing it, make it absolutely clear up front the child(ren) is having your surname, absolutely no wiggle room on that.
If you end up married you can agree to change it then.
I imagine he will be horrified at the idea and throw lots of 'but tradition!' at you, because this is about, as someone said, ensuring his lineage, not about committing to a family unit with you.

Sorry just RTFT.
But yes, how predictable 🙄

More women should hold strong on this position. I fully agree with this.

Marriage then kids.

I ended my relationship aged 27 years. Without that very meaningful bit of paper I would have been in dire straights. I stayed at home with our children we had after the wedding and he worked. I've done okay from the divorce as it has to be equitable but he definitely tried to screw me over and did to a degree in the time we were together then the divorce.

Don't give in. You have more to lose as it will be harder for you should he leave and you're pregnant or have kids. He only loses money if you divorce and it's meant to be joint anyway...

So sad that some men see a marriage as a bigger tie that a a child. Easier to walk away from a baby. They think they lose their money in a divorce..

Why would you want to marry someone who sees marrying you as a compromise? Raise your bar off the floor. He doesn’t want to get married and you do so you aren’t compatible. Don’t waste anymore time with this man. He’s not the one for you. A ticking biological clock has been the catalyst for many doomed relationships and the children suffer from the fallout. This has all the hallmarks of financial abuse once you are tied to him by a child. Don’t do it.

No ,this man is not a keeper
He wants to keep his money for himself
Don't have children before getting married,he will just move the goal posts then when you do have them