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.

This is a ridiculous suggestion. "Is she willing to take the risk"? Why should a WOMAN take ALL the risk in the first place? That's what I've been saying all along - there need to be equal risks and equal benefits.

As for does she believe he'll stand by her blah blah - of curse she does. But that's what risk is - we believe we will be fine, but we understand we might be wrong so we have a risk management strategy. No one gets on a plane believing it will fall out of the sky, but we go through the safety protocols anyway.

Protection for women = not important. Men having a family, risk-free = important 🤔

Shocker, he wants it all his way. You absolutely do not give a baby his name if you aren't married. Hes a cheeky fucker.

So he’s cautious about his cash? Maybe you should be equally cautious about literally putting your life and body at risk to carry and birth his children, not to mention your mental health and career at risk also? So he gets all the benefits including keeping all his cash to himself, while your entire life will change (career, body and health)? It’s important to always remember that cash is not the only way of measuring value or worth OP.

Do not shackle yourself to a man who does not want to take some risk on his side when he wants you to take all the risks on your side.

Yes well unfortunately, being female doesn't come with a crystal ball, and no, marriage is no guarantee, obviously, but it shows he's at least committed and willing to take risk himself ahead of having a child. Women are more than capable of standing on their own two feet, but that doesn't mean playing pretend that women aren't disadvantaged by having kids, that's not empowering, that's just stupid.

Don't waste your time here. This is his issue. You have made it pretty clear what you want. Marriage should be a partnership and include finances. If he's not up for that then leave. He needs an ultimatum or an incentive to deal with his baggage from his parents divorce.

So he doesn't want to commit to marrying you.
He doesn't want to ensure your financial wellbeing if the marriage ends (assuming, as is usually the case, that it will be you that loses income / pension / career progression opportunities if you have children).
He wants you to go through having children, without any commitment from him.
And he thinks you should give the children his surname.

He's got to be having a laugh. Surely noone is that arrogant and entitled?

so he wants you to provide him with childre. And an income but no security. Do not have children with this man. He wants everything his way and doesn’t see you as part of a unit or team.

You mentioned that if you have kids that you assume that he would do the drop offs and pick ups etc and do more of the day to day parenting. I do not believe this for a second because quite frankly he doesn’t seem to be compromising on anything else. He wants the status of being a father without the responsibility of being a parent. I bet my bottom dollar that he is full of platitudes and BS but as soon as the baby arrives it will be all on you. That is why he wants you to be financially vulnerable. The only card you hold now is your potential earning power. Be warned that if you are parenting without support that your career will suffer.

• He is telling indirectly that he has no intention of marrying and would like the option of walking away with everything (no financial obligation other than CMS which won't be great if he plans to reduce his income) if things went wrong even after you have kids.

• Once you have kids there will be no incentive to marry.

*Do you really want to be with someone who clearly doesn't want to marry you?

In your position if you want kids, I'd seriously consider leaving and starting again.

If you do have kids in this situation pre marriage give the kids your name. Tough if he doesn't like it.

You need to walk away. He doesn't want to get married, he has told you that so why are you hanging around?

Marriage with his assets ringfenced to begin with. HOWEVER, when he semi-retires and you become the breadwinner, there should be a formula which increases your share in the ringfenced pot over time in accordance with the money you have contributed to the family unit.

Oh and yes it should be a shared marital pot for absolutely everything except for the ringfenced amount, which is equalized out over time.

He still 'risks' losing what he has worked for (inherited?) now over time, but you don't risk spending a life building with him and then being left high and dry at the end.

Don't invest in a separate asset, invest in building this house, with the formula taking this into consideration.

Example: he contributes ?600k (land value) today, you contribute ?100k plus your time and energy building this family home, you are 6-1

Year 10, he has earned 30k per year and you have earned 60k for 10 years. You should get e.g. 200 k more in the house / assets to reflect your increased contribution to the family finances over time, but his greater share of family duties (if he does them). You are now 5-2

Year 20, the same earning pattern has continued, you get an additional c.200k of the total (and a share of any proportionate gain in value), so at this point you call it equal. If you split at this point, which definitely happens, you will have security reflecting your 20 years of bread winning. He will have slightly less but not a lot less than he started with, reflecting the realities of splitting a family, and the fact he has chosen to work less over all this time.

If no kids materialise, you might adjust the formula to take into account your reduced need for money going fwd in the event of a split.

@SapphireAmi him him him .
Nope no marriage no kids. .
If he can’t marry you for his future kids security and the person who is to be the mother of his kids , security and peace of mind then no .
You are having to put plans in place incase you are left as a single parent with nothing. All the while he plans his future. He won’t share a house but you get to put your body through hell .

Nope marriage or not at all . You can be married at no cost .

Following up to say that the better way actually is to just insist on marriage, with no formula. Either you love each other or you don't. Easy for me to say as I married someone with a bit more in assets and more earning potential than me, but he certainly didn't ask for a pre-nup and if he had I'd have said no!

Exactly . Telling fibs (future faking ) to get what he wants (kids) then nothing.
He’s also got the check to be unhappy that the kids would have op’s name . lol

I think the phrase that everyone is using “incentive to marry” is really interesting. I dated at long distance for four years, married in the fifth year, now married for 30 years. We discussed future plans a lot in the first four years but eventually, because of the cost in time/money/wear and tear of a long distance relationship we had to discuss marriage and children. Because it takes enormous commitment to being together to actually choose to align lives when you are both working and living on opposite coasts. You don’t just suddenly wake up and find yourself financially secure with house and children. You have to affirmatively choose:

1. to be together.
2. to make work and family choices that bring you together.
3. to prioritize the other person and the relationship when considering life choices.
4. to plan for the future security of the family and children and partner in sickness and in health.

In my opinion I wasn’t willing to waste my time compromising and strategizing to be together with someone who was keeping his options open and not willing to marry me snd share his fortune/future.

Marriage doesn’t guarantee anything but not marriage definitely doesn’t even promise anything.

@pikkumyy77 That final sentence is so powerful & true.

Stick to your guns. All his reasons for not getting married will still exist post kids so don't fall for a promise in the future AFTER you become tied to him. He is 41, he knows if he wants to marry and he clearly doesn't. You protect yourself here. Don't have kids taking the hit to your career without the marriage contract to protect you.

I agree with pikkumyy77.

DH and I met at uni - he was off somewhere else to do PhD by end of that first year year - education and carrers put us in different places for years and we did a lot of talking though things making sure had same long term goals.

Though at 24 when I was unhappy at work and job hunting he suggested I move to where he was a much more expensive area - and I pointed out the additional cost he suggested moving in with him - then he back tracked later. I suspect kith and kin infleunced that . So found a job where I already was - I wasn't game playing but seemed most sensible less risky option to me for me.

He proposed few months later - though with no date in mind for wedding and he was thinking years not months. When he had to move for work few years later further away he wanted me to move as it would be easier for me to find next job than him.

We talked for few months and I thought things though - and said okay if you set a wedding date - he did it next day first date he could reasonably get at registry office. So I moved up few weeks before hand - still felt risky and lots of people said I was mad - though I had saving behind me (later bulk of our house deposit as he had none) and my parents would have taken me in for a bit it went pear shaped. Also took longer to find new job than expected.

We both knew we'd wanted long term and kids from early on - but took nearly a decade - 2 years after marriage and his kith and kin thought him at 30 was too young for that - to get there and marriage was my line in the sand to take risk to move to him and certainly before having kids.

So his compromise is to pretend that he'll marry you? Come on, you must know he never will once he's hoodwinked you into having kids and made it less likely you'll leave. Stick to your guns OP. No marriage, no kids.

Why do men think they can pull this shit ?

No marriage no kids, if you have children and he then refuses to marry you, you are then very vulnerable and practically have solitary responsibility for the children and their finances. Marriage does create a situation where this doesn't happen in a split.

Believe me it's shit being an unmarried mother with all the responsibilities, I've been there and it was awful.

Yes, you are right. Those things are all reversible. It is definitely a big risk having children with someone without the legal protection of marriage. Especially if there is an imbalance financially.

The risk, I guess, should be weighed up by how much OP wants children. It is definitely possible she would meet someone else who wants to marry her and have children, but she also might not.

He says he wants children, and he wants them to have his name and he might compromise his beliefs and marry you after you have children.

He thinks you were born yesterday.

He won't marry you. He'll string you along and have kids with you because he wants kids but he's not willing to give you the legal protections that come with marriage and he doesn't really see you as his life partner. He could dump you at any time without ramifications other than paying child support. Easy in, easy out, that's what he wants.

This is not about children.
This is a farmer who doesnt want to have to share his land with you if you divorce.
It ends there

Hang on… he will build HIS house which he allows you and his future children to live in , and appreciates as an asset, but which gives you no security, and meanwhile he will live off YOUR income as the main breadwinner thus depleting your income / assets / savings?

And no way would my children have his surname if different to yours.

I wouldn’t change my name in marriage anyway, and Dc have hyphenated, but he really wants his cake!

OK, I do have some empathy with him being cautious about his asset, which he worked for before you are around (I presume), and it is not unnatural that his parents’ divorce has made him think twice.

In some ways your approach to commitment and marriage is measured in different things, but doesn’t necessarily mean either is less committed. He has assets… but men tend to lose out on a relationship with their kids in the case of divorce. Yes women usually end up worse financially, but I would be heartbroken to have my kids on the typical ‘EOW and one weekday night’ arrangement.

Would couples counselling help?

He has assets… but men tend to lose out on a relationship with their kids in the case of divorce.

I thik there's a pretty important word missing from this sentence:

He has assets… but men tend to CHOOSE TO lose out on a relationship with their kids in the case of divorce.

The dads I know where the relationship has ended and who have wanted to maintain that relationship, have managed to do so just fine. by choosing not to be dicks.

I've lost track of the number of times you hear, "Oh, I can't have the kids 50:50 beause of work" or whatever bullshit.