Husbands ExPartner and mother of his kids

SandC

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Before the law came in about claims on pension, you use to be able to put the value of the pension as an asset and add this to the equity in the house, to work out a fair divide of assets in court. Often one kept the house and the other the pension. Can this still be done?

That's again all to do with divorce. Having children does make a difference to the divvying up of joint assets but a pension is not a joint asset in an unmarried couple.

MissMoneypenny

SandC wrote: »

That's again all to do with divorce. Having children does make a difference to the divvying up of joint assets but a pension is not a joint asset in an unmarried couple.

Even if the pension pot has been built up during a 20 relationship - like the equity in the house?

MissMoneypenny

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

My cousin's solicitor told her when she was going through the divorce that the children could take ex-oh to court for maintenance while they were at Uni, but both refused as they were afraid that it would affect their relationship with their father (not that he sees much of them anyway).

That sounds like a one sided relationship. Not much of a father, if they refuse to support their own child during their university days. I suppose the children will work that one out for themselves when they get older.

zzzLazyDaisy

If the couple are not married, the ex has no claim on the pension pot.

That is why the pension splitting laws on divorce were introduced, to redress this inequality, but these laws only apply to married couples who are divorcing.

They don't apply to unmarried couples who have split up.

They don't apply to people like myself and my ex, who were married but have chosen not to divorce for personal reasons.

Dancing_Shoes

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

That sounds like a one sided relationship. Not much of a father, if they refuse to support their own child during their university days. I suppose the children will work that one out for themselves when they get older.

Couldn't agree more!
Not supporting your children is awful!

SandC

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Even if the pension pot has been built up during a 20 relationship - like the equity in the house?

No, because they were not married. If they were married it would be but his pension is his asset, hers is hers (if she has one).

Dancing_Shoes

SandC wrote: »

No, because they were not married. If they were married it would be but his pension is his asset, hers is hers (if she has one).

Luckily I married my hubby then so I can fleece him if he ever decided to leave me!:rotfl::rotfl: Yes I am only joking

muffintop

As I said on the first page of this thread, getting married is still important, if only for the financial security of the parent who is likely to be looking after the children for the majority of the time. They are likely to be disadvantaged in the workforce and pension-wise if the couple separates.

I don not understand why people would choose to be in a long-term relationship and have children without marrying. Surely one party to the relationship should be asking why the other refuses to marry. It's simply too easy to leave a long-term relationship if the parties aren't married. I am of the view that being married forces the parties to it to think harder and work harder on the quality and importance of the relationship.

Can those in LTRs without marriage but with children explain why you chose not to marry?

SandC

Well my friend sees it as just a piece of paper. We had a discussion about this on the weekend actually as I asked one friend (no children) if she was getting married soon and she said they weren't intending on ever marrying. I couldn't understand why they had got engaged. She kind of contradicted herself then by saying they couldn't afford to get married and I said she was talking about affording a wedding and that was not a marriage but I could see what she meant. So in that respect I don't know whether she was a bit in denial, either you intend on marrying or you don't.

The other friend, I don't know. They have two children and they've been together nearly 20 years so no individual assets. They just don't want to rock the boat I guess.

I think a lot of people are still hung up on wedding issues rather than marriage. I mean you can book the registrar, grab a couple of witnesses and then not even change your name if you don't want. But I think secretly a lot of people think either they don't get married or if they do they make it an occasion and there's always other things in the way.