Having a child: married vs. unmarried
Discussion
Not sure how to approach this topic, but collectively, with all the members we have here, there are some very knowledgeable people on this topic, either due to their line or work or their personal life lessons.
Marriage scares the sh*t out of me. My (perhaps warped) view is that you'd be crazy to bet half of everything you have on one woman, but many of us do. I want kids because, in my view, once we kick the bucket, what do we leave as our legacy? For me it would hopefully be a well raised child or perhaps even two.
I guess my question is this. Worst case scenario. What happens to my assets if:
(a) I am married with a child
(b) I am unmarried with a child
And are prenups valid in the UK or are they simply of persuasive authority in the eyes of the courts and, depending on the presiding judge, they can take none, some or all of it into account.
Views would be appreciated. I am almost 40, so need to get a move on with my life in many respects!
Marriage scares the sh*t out of me. My (perhaps warped) view is that you'd be crazy to bet half of everything you have on one woman, but many of us do. I want kids because, in my view, once we kick the bucket, what do we leave as our legacy? For me it would hopefully be a well raised child or perhaps even two.
I guess my question is this. Worst case scenario. What happens to my assets if:
(a) I am married with a child
(b) I am unmarried with a child
And are prenups valid in the UK or are they simply of persuasive authority in the eyes of the courts and, depending on the presiding judge, they can take none, some or all of it into account.
Views would be appreciated. I am almost 40, so need to get a move on with my life in many respects!
Why just as f
ked unmarried? You’d have to split any joint assets and make child support payments depending on income and childcare split, both perfectly reasonable, but there is no concept of ancillary relief proceedings with the ex partner staking a claim on any personal assets or as yet unearned income, “just because”.
This should be the handbook for any man thinking about getting married:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/0...
ked unmarried? You’d have to split any joint assets and make child support payments depending on income and childcare split, both perfectly reasonable, but there is no concept of ancillary relief proceedings with the ex partner staking a claim on any personal assets or as yet unearned income, “just because”.This should be the handbook for any man thinking about getting married:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/0...
Edited by theboss on Thursday 8th November 14:26
Thanks for the replies, gents. I do take risks in life, but it needs to be well thought out and whenever I do take a risk, I always think "what is the worst case scenario and what is the best case scenario."
Divorce rates are high, sadly. As such, I believe I am right to be cautious. With the way things are setup in the UK and the US, I don't believe there is a deterrent for women not to go and do something daft. If I am a married woman, there isn't a prenup, I could go start an affair in the knowledge that if I want, I could file for divorce and the claim half the assets. Position is even stronger if there are kids under 18 involved I would have guessed. If you are NOT married, aside from child maintenance, you're on your own love, so tread carefully.
Is that the wrong way to look at it?
Divorce rates are high, sadly. As such, I believe I am right to be cautious. With the way things are setup in the UK and the US, I don't believe there is a deterrent for women not to go and do something daft. If I am a married woman, there isn't a prenup, I could go start an affair in the knowledge that if I want, I could file for divorce and the claim half the assets. Position is even stronger if there are kids under 18 involved I would have guessed. If you are NOT married, aside from child maintenance, you're on your own love, so tread carefully.
Is that the wrong way to look at it?
Aliblahblah said:
Thanks for the replies, gents. I do take risks in life, but it needs to be well thought out and whenever I do take a risk, I always think "what is the worst case scenario and what is the best case scenario."
Divorce rates are high, sadly. As such, I believe I am right to be cautious. With the way things are setup in the UK and the US, I don't believe there is a deterrent for women not to go and do something daft. If I am a married woman, there isn't a prenup, I could go start an affair in the knowledge that if I want, I could file for divorce and the claim half the assets. Position is even stronger if there are kids under 18 involved I would have guessed. If you are NOT married, aside from child maintenance, you're on your own love, so tread carefully.
Is that the wrong way to look at it?
Essentially if you marry somebody without assets and/or income prospects similar to your own, and then have children, you need to understand that in the event of a future divorce, you are at risk of being absolutely rinsed. Foregoing 50% of “your” assets would be a good outcome. The court can look at ANY assets you have, even taking into account assets gained after the breakup, and also your future income, and award as much of it as it thinks fair to ensure the wellbeing of your children and ex.Divorce rates are high, sadly. As such, I believe I am right to be cautious. With the way things are setup in the UK and the US, I don't believe there is a deterrent for women not to go and do something daft. If I am a married woman, there isn't a prenup, I could go start an affair in the knowledge that if I want, I could file for divorce and the claim half the assets. Position is even stronger if there are kids under 18 involved I would have guessed. If you are NOT married, aside from child maintenance, you're on your own love, so tread carefully.
Is that the wrong way to look at it?
You need to have an awful lot of faith in the person you are marrying, and you also need to be mindful of the fact that people can and do change over time.
I never imagined my ex turning into somebody who would do *anything* within her grasp to keep me over a barrel for as long as possible, after initially swanning off into the sunset with an affair partner exclaiming that we should all move on with our lives and “get over it”. If only I could do just that. Some women will foster a dependency along with an immense entitlement complex and it becomes very difficult to become unshackled from this after a divorce.
Edited by theboss on Thursday 8th November 15:49
I have 3 designers under me who is facing these issues, one is 33 with his GF living with him getting broody so he is bracing for her ticking clock to chime, he is not looking forward to things..
The other 2 girls are in their 20s - 1 is 22yr living with her BF 10 years her senior so I suspect she is just not thinking about families yet. The other girl is a self certified Tinder THOT who along with her flat mate is out every weekend / some weekdays riding the Tinder C££K carousel. She is now 27 and I've seen a steady decline in her looks in the last 4 years.
All 3 are always whining about having no money literally the day after every payday.
Me on the other hand came close to marrying when I was in my early 30s. Turns out bailing out was the best thing as she turned out to be an absolute headcase.
Now 41yr old, I'm in a position to retire hopefully by 45 - 47 as I have investments in place generating passive income till the day the big man upstairs calls my number. Have a couple of properties mortgage free. No kids + wife means I'm free to travel the world anytime seeing whoever I like. No way would I want to be in the situation of the 3 designers working for me.
The other 2 girls are in their 20s - 1 is 22yr living with her BF 10 years her senior so I suspect she is just not thinking about families yet. The other girl is a self certified Tinder THOT who along with her flat mate is out every weekend / some weekdays riding the Tinder C££K carousel. She is now 27 and I've seen a steady decline in her looks in the last 4 years.
All 3 are always whining about having no money literally the day after every payday.
Me on the other hand came close to marrying when I was in my early 30s. Turns out bailing out was the best thing as she turned out to be an absolute headcase.
Now 41yr old, I'm in a position to retire hopefully by 45 - 47 as I have investments in place generating passive income till the day the big man upstairs calls my number. Have a couple of properties mortgage free. No kids + wife means I'm free to travel the world anytime seeing whoever I like. No way would I want to be in the situation of the 3 designers working for me.
theboss said:
Essentially if you marry somebody without assets and/or income prospects similar to your own, and then have children, you need to understand that in the event of a future divorce, you are at risk of being absolutely rinsed. Foregoing 50% of “your” assets would be a good outcome. The court can look at ANY assets you have, even taking into account assets gained after the breakup, and also your future income, and award as much of it as it thinks fair to ensure the wellbeing of your children and ex. You need to have an awful lot of faith in the person you are marrying, and you also need to be mindful of the fact that people can and do change over time.
Thank you, Boss. That last bit, the part where people change over time, I have just sat and stared at for a good 5 mins, reading over and over again. Certainly something to think about.Edited by theboss on Thursday 8th November 15:49
amare32 said:
The other 2 girls are in their 20s - 1 is 22yr living with her BF 10 years her senior so I suspect she is just not thinking about families yet. The other girl is a self certified Tinder THOT who along with her flat mate is out every weekend / some weekdays riding the Tinder C££K carousel. She is now 27 and I've seen a steady decline in her looks in the last 4 years. All 3 are always whining about having no money literally the day after every payday.
The THOT sounds like a nightmare in the making. I pity the poor sod that ends up marrying that!But what about the situation where I do NOT get married and there is simply a child involved? Means I don’t have to split anything with anyone, just maintain the child?
Please note, I am just looking at the worst possible case scenario as opposed to premediating anything in advance.
feef said:
A commitment resulting in a child is far greater than the commitment involved in a marriage IMHO.
If you're not ready to get married to the woman, then you're unlikely to be in the best place to raise a child together.
Another good comment. If you're not ready to get married to the woman, then you're unlikely to be in the best place to raise a child together.
When you have a child to provide for, looking after 'number one' will hopefully be the last thing on your mind
As far as I was aware, when not married the only legal obligation you have is child maintenance if you split up? You may want to provide more than the minimum, because of the kids, but I don't think you would be taken to the cleaners by solicitors. Arguments about who owes what and splitting joint assets would be a private matter.
Personally, I'd say don't get married and carry on with your life as you would do if you were married. Marriage is an expensive piece of paper. (Caveat, I got divorced after 18 months of marriage but came out of it 'up' in terms of money as no kids involved. Now I have a kid and partner and have absolutely no intention of getting married. Neither does she (also divorcee). I'm fairly sure we'll split up before/or when kid is 18 so not being married is in my best interests but it makes no difference to our relationship or the well being of the son whether were married or not.
Personally, I'd say don't get married and carry on with your life as you would do if you were married. Marriage is an expensive piece of paper. (Caveat, I got divorced after 18 months of marriage but came out of it 'up' in terms of money as no kids involved. Now I have a kid and partner and have absolutely no intention of getting married. Neither does she (also divorcee). I'm fairly sure we'll split up before/or when kid is 18 so not being married is in my best interests but it makes no difference to our relationship or the well being of the son whether were married or not.
C0ffin D0dger said:
feef said:
A commitment resulting in a child is far greater than the commitment involved in a marriage IMHO.
If you're not ready to get married to the woman, then you're unlikely to be in the best place to raise a child together.
Nice thought but it doesn't seem to stop most people. If you're not ready to get married to the woman, then you're unlikely to be in the best place to raise a child together.
Aliblahblah said:
Thanks for the replies, gents. I do take risks in life, but it needs to be well thought out and whenever I do take a risk, I always think "what is the worst case scenario and what is the best case scenario."
Divorce rates are high, sadly. As such, I believe I am right to be cautious. With the way things are setup in the UK and the US, I don't believe there is a deterrent for women not to go and do something daft. If I am a married woman, there isn't a prenup, I could go start an affair in the knowledge that if I want, I could file for divorce and the claim half the assets. Position is even stronger if there are kids under 18 involved I would have guessed. If you are NOT married, aside from child maintenance, you're on your own love, so tread carefully.
Is that the wrong way to look at it?
If you are concerned about what happens regarding children on death, under current law being unmarried places children at the greatest risk of getting nothing. HOWEVER, writing a decent and precise will can make a huge difference in protecting the inheritance of children (and your partner). There are other issues surrounding unmarried couples around bank accounts, credit card accounts, right to remain in the family home etc.Divorce rates are high, sadly. As such, I believe I am right to be cautious. With the way things are setup in the UK and the US, I don't believe there is a deterrent for women not to go and do something daft. If I am a married woman, there isn't a prenup, I could go start an affair in the knowledge that if I want, I could file for divorce and the claim half the assets. Position is even stronger if there are kids under 18 involved I would have guessed. If you are NOT married, aside from child maintenance, you're on your own love, so tread carefully.
Is that the wrong way to look at it?
The recent court ruling regarding the right of heterosexual couple to be able to have a Civil Partnership may change all this - but if you want the protection of a Civil Partnership, you have to take steps to set up a Civil Partnership (which from a legal point of view is very close to being married - although there are still some differences).
Thank you for everyone's contribution, I am very grateful.
The other question as this - let's say I have UK assets and I move to, marry and settle in Australia to an Australian national. I am guessing if things went tits up, then everything I own, even if it is in the UK (basically my flat), would potentially be under threat?
The other question as this - let's say I have UK assets and I move to, marry and settle in Australia to an Australian national. I am guessing if things went tits up, then everything I own, even if it is in the UK (basically my flat), would potentially be under threat?
It's a simple answer. If you're not married and have children, then you are liable for:
- Child maintenance, which is calculated as a % of your Gross Weekly income after pension contributions, depending on number of children.
- If you own a house together (both names on the deeds and mortgage), then she's entitled to 50% of any equity in the house.
Anything else you have such as pensions, savings, assets etc are yours and cannot be touched.
As a 41yr old who is currently going through a messy separation, never married, owned our home together, and have two wonderful children, I speak from experience.
The first thing my solicitor asked me was "are you married?", my reply was "no", her reply to that was "think yourself lucky, else you'd be walking away from the house with nothing but a couple of bin-bags and the shirt on your back".
The system is, understandably, geared towards protecting the primary carer (which is more oftener than not the mother), but it's easily played and fathers (no matter how good a father you are) are at a series disadvantage and get royally fked over. For example, if you're married then it's supposed to be 50:50 on the split, but if the mother has never worked and has no assets then they are automatically given the house equity you have etc due to needing to house the children etc. I know somebody who is currently pursuing half her ex husband's vast pension pot, simply because she can, not because she needs it.
I should also add, when it comes to house equity split, an unmarried mother can make whats called a "schedule 1" application, where she can apply for all, or part of, the father's 50% share, this would however be treated as a loan and is repayable to the father when the youngest child turns 18.
I've never married because I've never felt the need, no other reason. Knowing what I know due to going through the process, nothing on earth would now get me down the isle.
- Child maintenance, which is calculated as a % of your Gross Weekly income after pension contributions, depending on number of children.
- If you own a house together (both names on the deeds and mortgage), then she's entitled to 50% of any equity in the house.
Anything else you have such as pensions, savings, assets etc are yours and cannot be touched.
As a 41yr old who is currently going through a messy separation, never married, owned our home together, and have two wonderful children, I speak from experience.
The first thing my solicitor asked me was "are you married?", my reply was "no", her reply to that was "think yourself lucky, else you'd be walking away from the house with nothing but a couple of bin-bags and the shirt on your back".
The system is, understandably, geared towards protecting the primary carer (which is more oftener than not the mother), but it's easily played and fathers (no matter how good a father you are) are at a series disadvantage and get royally f
ked over. For example, if you're married then it's supposed to be 50:50 on the split, but if the mother has never worked and has no assets then they are automatically given the house equity you have etc due to needing to house the children etc. I know somebody who is currently pursuing half her ex husband's vast pension pot, simply because she can, not because she needs it.I should also add, when it comes to house equity split, an unmarried mother can make whats called a "schedule 1" application, where she can apply for all, or part of, the father's 50% share, this would however be treated as a loan and is repayable to the father when the youngest child turns 18.
I've never married because I've never felt the need, no other reason. Knowing what I know due to going through the process, nothing on earth would now get me down the isle.
Edited by kmpowell on Friday 9th November 17:57
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff