'Don't have kids unless you are ready to marry' says judge

Bennifred

pollyanna24 wrote: »

...................................Still got me pregnant with our youngest and then left me when she was 2 months old. ...................

You make it sound as though you had no part in the act!:(

pollyanna24

Bennifred wrote: »

You make it sound as though you had no part in the act!:(

Haha, I do see what you mean. I still wanted us to stay together, he was the one who had decided we had split up and still managed to get me pregnant "How on earth did that happen eh?"

And then left me.

My point was, if we had actually gotten married, would it have made him stay? Probably not.

Kayalana99

pollyanna24 wrote: »

Haha, I do see what you mean. I still wanted us to stay together, he was the one who had decided we had split up and still managed to get me pregnant "How on earth did that happen eh?"

And then left me.

My point was, if we had actually gotten married, would it have made him stay? Probably not.

Sorry I know its a delicate issue for you but its the perfect example, if he had been commited enough to you to get married - then he might of stayed, but he choose not to get married at a guess its because he didnt want to make that commintment..?

I don't agree that getting married makes things better, but I do understand what their saying that you should be commited enough in first place before having kids.

pollyanna24

Kayalana99 wrote: »

Sorry I know its a delicate issue for you but its the perfect example, if he had been commited enough to you to get married - then he might of stayed, but he choose not to get married at a guess its because he didnt want to make that commintment..?

I don't agree that getting married makes things better, but I do understand what their saying that you should be commited enough in first place before having kids.

All the above is true I guess.

The wedding was planned, even went to a lovely Caribbean island and he just wouldn't commit.

After 10 years together, I thought we had it sorted. But it all went wrong when the kids came along, guess we couldn't cope with the change. But if we had married 10 months before our eldest girl was born, still think he would have left, cos we would still have had the same troubles after she was born than if we'd married before.

Would I turn back time? No, I have my gorgeous two girlies and funnily enough, am actually better off financially without him (and not this is not due to benefits!!!, but to me working and not having to pay for everything for him!)

neverdespairgirl

supersaver2 wrote: »

Its great that you have ensured you are both safe for the future and if the worst happens, lots of unmarried folks aren't. After you have sorted all the wills, property etc to ensure your partner will receive it on your death (god forbid), it would be cheaper to have a very simply wedding though and this will bring about all you have sorted automatically!

It wouldn't do all that automatically. Firstly, if we were married, and one of us died intestate, intestacy doesn't automatically mean everything goes to the surviving spouse. It depends on the value of the estate, among other things.

And both of our wills are about more than just property, they include guardianship arrangements for our children should we both die before they are adult.

In addition, drawing up our wills was completely free, because my godfather is a solicitor specialising in wills, trusts and probate (-:

neverdespairgirl

bylromarha wrote: »

Is it just me then who knows people who think having a child together is the way to show your 3 month commitment to each other?

I don't know (in real life) anyone like that.

Of my friends who have children, from school, university and work, almost all are married, and I can think of two other couples like OH & me who aren't married, but have been solidly together a long time.

unicorn1984 wrote: »

Marriage USED to be for life, people of our Grandparents ages never divorced, now its so common, people barely bat an eyelid. So I really don't see how being married makes you better equipped to have children....

My grandmother grew up in a single parent family - she lived with her younger sister, and their mother.

There wasn't actually a divorce, but her father pushed off when Granny was a baby, came back 18 months later, stayed a year, and pushed off again for good (after the second child had been born). My Granny saw him once a year until she was 13 years old, then never again, although he lived another 15 years after that. She said she came from a "single parent family before they were invented."

Growing up when she did - she was born in 1915 - she was one of a very large number of children growing up in single parent households, although most of those children has been left fatherless because of the First World War.

neverdespairgirl

Kayalana99 wrote: »

Why?

I don't want/need a church wedding with all the bells and whistles but I do want a proper celebration with our family and friends. Isn't that one of the reasons to get married to celebrate your love? To make a lasting commitment to someone?

Maybe I could afford to go down to the registery office and sign abit of paper to say I'm married with just a couple people but what would be the point other then the legal side?

It is one of the reasons, yes. But it's not important to everyone. I don't feel especially interested in the idea of a public commitment to OH, and neither does he. We are committed to each other every day, we are together, and invest time, energy and love in each other and our son (and bump). That's public enough for me.

Even when I was a young girl, I found the bride's part in weddings to be far too docile and silent (-: I remember asking my parents at a cousin's wedding why only men spoke at the reception - the bride's father, the bridegroom, the best man.... not a woman to be heard.

neverdespairgirl

Mankysteve wrote: »

I would generally expect better of the telegraph despite its Murdoch roots.

I don't think it's ever been Murdoch. Conrad Black, surely, in the past?

GobbledyGook

I'd love to see a true comparison with "illegitimate" children years ago and children to unmarried mothers now. It would be interesting to get a true comparison between the mothers forced into mother and baby homes/adoption, backstreet abortions and the grandchild-brought-up-as-youngest-child scenarios and the openness of it now. Undoubtedly there is an increase, but is it as severe as it seems or is it partly down to the fact that now that mothers don't have to give up their babies any more?

(I put illegitimate in quote marks because I couldn't think of another word, but I know that it has bad associations with previous stigma).

SingleSue

I did everything the right way, married first and then we started to have children over 3 and a half years later, when we had been together for nearly 7 years.

Fast forward almost 17 years later (and nearly 20 years together), we were divorced.

My mum and dad didn't quite do it the right way...mum was nearly 5 months pregnant when they got married in an awful rush (according to my nan). They have been married 53 and a half years now.