How best to protect girlfriends financial position?

Malthusian

Jaguar_Skills wrote: »

The reason we aren’t marrying yet is because she wants a nice wedding, not just one to protect her financially, and because of her age we’d prefer to have the second child first rather than marry now then have the second child and go into a higher risk profile.

Elope. I.e. get married in a registry office without telling anyone and then have the big party when you can afford it. According to The Times comic a couple of weeks ago it's very fashionable.

As Bowlhead said (in amongst the stuff about her working her way through the entire Harchester United first XI) there is something of a contradiction in giving her money to protect her against the possibility you might not want to share your money with her anymore. If you think that you might do something which would cause the relationship to break down, the simple solution is don't do that. If you think that she might, then you may come to deeply regret giving her money.

It could turn out to be a bad idea for reasons that have nothing to do with fault or blame. What if you move half your money into her name to protect her, and she then inherits a large sum of money, which she doesn't share with you? In the event of a breakup she walks away with the inheritance and half your money.

Getting married does not really solve this problem because if you harbour any doubts over whether the relationship might last, traditionally you shouldn't be getting married (till death do us part etc). But thinking about it might clarify things for you.

If you are really certain that you would want to split your assets 50/50 with her in the event of a break-up, despite not being married and having no obligation to, regardless of how it happened, you could cross that bridge when you came to it instead of complicating your affairs or investing tax-inefficiently now.

IanManc

The obvious thing for you both to do to ensure the financial stability and security is to get married now. The problem you have is that you are prioritising having a "nice wedding" over stability and security. The state already provides a comprehensive mechanism to ensure the stability and security you seek, but you are choosing not to use it.

We cannot always have everything, or everything our own way.

In short, get married.

Jaguar_Skills

Thanks everyone for your responses. Most illuminating, especially yours Bowlhead!!

She does have a small personal pension that was derived through her ltd company so she has a bit but just conscious I will make headway with mine before she goes back to work.

I’m not against the idea of getting married quickly and then doing the party but I think it may take some convincing her.

Bowlhead I thought the Lisa couldn’t be accessed until 55??

kidmugsy

If you get married now, you can do the whole white wedding biz with a service of celebration in a church and a party afterwards some years from now e.g. when your second-born is old enough to be a page boy or whatever.

The whole point of marriage is to arrange property rights in a way that safeguards bringing up the children.

Malthusian

Jaguar_Skills wrote: »

Bowlhead I thought the Lisa couldn’t be accessed until 55??

It can but there is a 6.25% net penalty (125% x 75% = 93.75%) unless it's above age 60 (55 is for pensions) or for a first house deposit (subject to restrictions on the value of the house).

I think she will take less convincing than you think. She already knows the big party is not on the cards for another few years. Having a quiet marriage now does not mean you aren't going to have the big party. Why would she turn it down?

I realise it won't be quite the same standing in front of the entire assembled clan and saying "With this ring I thee wed" if you're already wed. But realistically, it isn't going to be any less of a party if it's a "renewal of vows" or suchlike. You've already been together for 7 years and have a child, your friends and family already know you're committed to each other, whenever it happens the party will be a celebration of an existing long-term relationship rather than the start of a new one. The big party, whenever it comes, will be just as special for both you and the guests whether you're legally married beforehand or not.

Mojisola

Jaguar_Skills wrote: »

I’m not against the idea of getting married quickly and then doing the party but I think it may take some convincing her.

Think of the legal part at the RO just like getting a will signed at a solicitor's office - the celebration and party part can be done at a future significant date.

eskbanker

All this graphic talk of potential multiple infidelities by the girlfriend and yet the recommendation is for OP to deposit into Lisa....

Jaguar_Skills

eskbanker wrote: »

All this graphic talk of potential multiple infidelities by the girlfriend and yet the recommendation is for OP to deposit into Lisa....

She doesn’t like football. I’m safe.

le_loup

Of course there's a difference between football and footballers!

tyllwyd

As someone who took time out of their career to look after the children I wouldn't think about it from a purely financial point of view. If your girlfriend is feeling insecure about her future if the two of you split up (and I'm sure we all know people who have gone through unexpected but nasty break ups in relationships), then she needs to have some money invested in her name. If there is an ISA in your name with a promise to give her half, then unless you are on good terms at that point she's looking at going to court to get her share of the money. Even if financially there is a small advantage in having it in your name, if I was in her position I'd be much more relaxed knowing that at least some of the family investments were in my own name.