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.

First, I would have the conversation about what will happen in terms of childcare and household duties. That's another big one you really need clarity about.

I would go for a counter-proposal like @meatbawls suggests. But that should be your line in the sand, he takes it or leaves it, no more messing around, he should be grateful you're even trying.

And if you have children with him without being married, never ever give them his name. Remember Nell Gwynn.

I wouldn't have children with someone who wouldn't marry me first. He may well not agree to it afterwards. I've seen it so many times on MN and it's usually the woman who ends up losing out. If he wants a family unit, marriage is the first step. He needs to show commitment.

Eh?

How so?

He wants it all his own way, doesn't he.

You'd be a fool to go along with this, OP.

The legal decisions are easy enough to make, it's when people unmake them that it can get complex.

A couple who have kids and/or property together are liable to find it verrrrry complex and expensive to unwind the relationship if either of them decide to play silly buggers. Just like marriage. It's not the actual divorce part that usually causes the problem when people are splitting up, even less so now we have no fault. It's the assets and children.

None of which is to say anyone should get married if they don't want to. But if an unmarried couple are sharing everything like this, their risk of expense on separation really isn't any less. Thats something people should be aware of in their decision making.

He will never marry you. And if you split post kids without being married he could well be seen as the primary carer. He keeps his house, lifestyle and the kids and you will be living back with your parents, seeing your kids less than 50% and paying maintenance if he drops his income. Not a chance in hell I would risk that scenario unless I had significant assets, maybe not even then.

His plan to drop his hours sounds bonkers - why would you have children and then deliberately reduce your ability to provide for them? And this is a unilateral plan of his? He doesn't see you as a team.

Yes I agree....but marriage is just a legal contract really....you can do your own if you are worried about the future....relationships end all the time unfortunately.....that's what I'm trying to say.....NOT everyone believe in marriage.....some people want children so other don't etc....some people want to buy homes other choose to rent ....its all about choice....and for a couple to be together it has to be a joint decisio🤷‍♀️

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.

What’s he like when you’re ill? Does he prioritise your needs and care for you or does he expect his job to come first and for you to just buckle up and get on with it?

I think you’re letting your biological ticking clock drown out your obvious reservations because he doesn’t sound like good marriage material let alone being a caring father, because he’s always going to carry on putting his own needs first. Having kids won’t change his inherently selfish nature.

Realistically, that’s not the basis for a long happy marriage!

In your shoes, I’d ditch him and start searching for someone who will treat you fairly and views a relationship as a 50/50 endeavour. I met DH in my late thirties after splitting with my cheating ex at 35. You still have time on your side but don’t leave it too long.

Well, you can do your own for the bits that are a contract between you two. You can't for the bits that are about the state's relationship to you. There are some things that you can only have whilst married/CP and some you can only have whilst unmarried.

But yes it's true, people obviously have different views on marriage, and it won't be the right decision for everyone. The main thing is that people should be well informed. It's a very difficult one to compromise on, for obvious reasons! And a promise that one partner clearly doesn't want to keep is not that.

There’s often so much more beneath the surface than we initially realise. If he comes from a farming background and especially if a parental divorce disrupted the farm, it’s not surprising he might be feeling protective or even emotionally charged about assets and legacy. Farms aren’t just properties — they’re often generational, emotional, and deeply personal. When something like divorce throws that into chaos, it can shape someone’s views on relationships and ownership profoundly.
You really captured something important when you said, “There is something deeply ingrained in working on your own land.” That sense of continuity, of being a steward of land that’s been in the family, can create a kind of quiet pressure — to safeguard it at all costs, even if it means awkward conversations about legalities.

And yes, there’s definitely no "one size fits all" answer here. What matters most is clear communication, mutual understanding, and feeling emotionally safe to share your perspectives — especially around topics like finances and family that carry a lot of weight.

Exploring legal options before marriage or children doesn’t mean anticipating failure — it means being thoughtful and intentional. It’s not about mistrust, but about ensuring that if life takes unexpected turns, both partners are protected and respected.

If you go through with this (and I can see why it’s a difficult choice with age a worry).

Continues paying 50% unless he puts you on the deeds for the house. You contribute 50% to all bills and expenses eg holidays, childcare but you are not subsidising his lifestyle if he won’t give you any financial security in return.

Keep saving and if you can, invest in an asset of your own that will help if you split.

Be prepared for this not to work out, it sounds like he wants the children more than the relationship. Plan ahead, financially and for possible childcare. Make sure he does his part.

As no one these days wants to 'share their worldly goods' just go to a good solicitor and get in writing what will happen to all of it if you split/one of you dies and then carry on living together. And if you're not happy with the divide, then that's your answer

Because the wealthier one of you will never want marriage.

Sadly, you've wasted precious child-bearing years by delaying dealing with this situation. This man is only thinking of himself, and clearly doesn't care about leaving you financially screwed through income and pension losses through maternity and being a primary care giver. Of course he wasn't keen on them having your surname - these types never are. They want everything their way and don't give a fuck about the security of their own children's mother.

This isn't the man to procreate with.

So he’ll keep the value of his asset and all your income will go in daily use for both of you

he is very much taking the piss

If you have children without being married , then the children need to have your name as the mother and that will not be his name. You need to protect yourself financially and make sure that all childcare is 50/50. Do not give up work or let your career be sidelined because if you split, you will be left with nothing.

You said "There is no way NM would advise a woman in his situation to get married"

How would a woman be in his situation? Men cannot get pregnant, they do not take all the risks women take when bringing a child into the world. How would a woman take no risks with her finances, whilst presuring her male partner to take all the risks with his health, career and pension, by having a child?

What you're trying to do is section off one tiny part of the whole situation, and then pretend thats the only part that matters and that we're all sexist because we'd give a woman in his place different advice. Its completely disingenuous.

I bet he wasn’t. Your a brood mare to him.

Would he be ok with a Civil Partnership instead? One of dear friends had an upsetting marriage break up but was happy to enter a civil partnership with his partner for her future financial security. Only one grown up child with his own home so no reason to not make her sole heir

I'd say ltb. But if you've only been together a short while, then I wouldn't blame him.
Otherwise definitely leave.

I am by far the higher earner and we agreed before DC that DH would be SAHD for at least part of the time. We got married for lots of reasons. But one was that while I felt 100% cetain that if the relationship floundered I would treat him fairly in the case of a divorce, it was perfectly reasoanbel for him to want that certainty too.

What he may not be seeing (or he does see but it doesn't bother him) is that he's asking you to take all the risks with no security and no chance of building security for yourself despite your very decent salary. There's also no guarantee how things will pan out in terms of childcare and lots of other things once DC are around.

If you decide to go for children without being married then at a minimum I'd want to:

Buy a house yourself now with savings and buy to let mortgage. Close to where your future DC would go to school.

He pays all the family home mortgage and property maintenance. You pay 50% of bills and never any more (no early retiring at your expense unless he can cover his 50%).

Children take your surname until marriage.

The other option is to see a solicitor about a pre-nup to protect his current wealth and then get married. They can be overruled in this country if deemed unfair I believe (eg if they left one party with nothing) but you could get advice on that.

you both don’t align in your values- you value being married before having children and you should stick to it. Where are you going to draw a line with respect to your values? After you have children these things become far more important and you’ll struggle if you’ll are not on the same page and it’ll be far easier for him to up and leave if you’re not married.

He loves your womb more than he loves you. Once he gets the kids you will have less power to negotiate, he wants that.

Yes, it's a classical strawman fallacy