Laws around protecting assets in event of breakups and kids

unholyangel

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Please, don't have children unless you are ready to give up EVERYTHING for them. Your sleep, your spare time, your house and your ISA. Definitely your comfort - read about Lego Fire Walks if you doubt me ...

And to be honest, if I were your future partner, I'd run a mile if I didn't think you were ready to give up everything for me too ...

See I agree about the child part but not the partner. At which point would you expect them to give up everything?

If they were willing to give up/expected me to give up wealth that took a decade to amass for the sake of a 1 year relationship (for example), I'd see that as a sign of them being financially irresponsible and run a mile for that reason. But then in a partner, I'd be looking for an equal rather than a dependent.

Different perhaps if (again, for example) you're together for decades and something happens that means they need help. But just being in a relationship with them meaning you should be willing to give up everything? No, at least not in my opinion. Each case should be judged on its own merits.

Type_45

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

the following two quotes are at least partly mutually incompatible.

Please, don't have children unless you are ready to give up EVERYTHING for them. Your sleep, your spare time, your house and your ISA. Definitely your comfort - read about Lego Fire Walks if you doubt me ...

And to be honest, if I were your future partner, I'd run a mile if I didn't think you were ready to give up everything for me too ...

And again, if you want children, please think about your responsibilities too!

:rotfl: Indeed. I know a lady who had a house, a car and a well-paying job when she married a chap with no house, a motorbike, and no job ... but they've survived!

Thank you, Savvy Sue, for so succulently summing up all my fears from the perspective of exactly the kind of woman that I am seeking to avoid.

Type_45

So basically, what I'm getting from this is:

- Don't get married
- don't allow a partner to contribute to my mortgage or to any repairs or maintenance
- marry a financial equal if possible
- even if I have a live-in partner and a child, I shouldn't lose the house in the event of a break up


Anything else I've missed? Or misunderstood?

Primrose

And if you have a child with a partner you'll be obliged to pay child maintenance until the child is 18 so you can abandon any form of a carefree sex life! . How many times has a man been trapped by the excuse "oh my birth control pills obviously didn't work !" Plenty of men have been trapped by that one by a woman whose biological clock is ticking.

Socajam

Type 45 - I am with you on this.
I was with someone and got burnt extremely badly. It took me years to recover where I was penny pinching, working, but had hardly any food in the house, leftover money in the bank etc
Now that I have established myself, mortgage paid off, money in the bank, I am not prepared to having someone moved into my property, then if the relationship fails give them any percentage.
We either both have to have our own property or just be bed partners/travelling companions and then you leave.
One really have to experience the hell of financial instability that a breakdown in relationship can bring to someone's life.
Been there and have no reason to return - call me selfish, but I would prefer to be and live my life not being in financial hell.

Humdinger1

Type

How about looking for someone who wants a real relationship, and where you feel the same. Call me naive but not everyone is in it for the money. It's not my job to tell you how to live your life but many women would be cautious about setting up a relationship where it's all about the money as that is likely to change more than once in the medium to long term. If you find the right person, are you going to think less of her when she needs to take time off to give birth and look after your baby for even a short time, and possibly earns less during that time? If she has a stonking career, are you prepared to be a stay at home dad so she can max out her earnings; or will you both work, which will cost you a shed load in childcare fees whichever way you do it?

Pre nups don't hold the same weight in the UK as some other places. If you married and then divorced, priority is given to the needs of the child and maintaining its stability as far as possible and the needs of the parents are considered but are secondary . How else could it work, unless we expected the kids of the divorced to grow up on the streets? I think you'd want to take care of your child though even if that did happen.

Good luck. I think finding the right person is key here; sounds like you might have had some unfortunate encounters previously but that doesn't have to be how it always is.

Humdinger

Type_45

Primrose wrote: »

And if you have a child with a partner you'll be obliged to pay child maintenance until the child is 18 so you can abandon any form of a carefree sex life! . How many times has a man been trapped by the excuse "oh my birth control pills obviously didn't work !" Plenty of men have been trapped by that one by a woman whose biological clock is ticking.

Paying child maintenance is absolutely fine. In no way would I shirk that obligation.

Losing half (of a large percentage) of one's net worth is another matter entirely.

Type_45

Humdinger1 wrote: »

Type

How about looking for someone who wants a real relationship, and where you feel the same. Call me naive but not everyone is in it for the money. It's not my job to tell you how to live your life but many women would be cautious about setting up a relationship where it's all about the money as that is likely to change more than once in the medium to long term. If you find the right person, are you going to think less of her when she needs to take time off to give birth and look after your baby for even a short time, and possibly earns less during that time? If she has a stonking career, are you prepared to be a stay at home dad so she can max out her earnings; or will you both work, which will cost you a shed load in childcare fees whichever way you do it?

Pre nups don't hold the same weight in the UK as some other places. If you married and then divorced, priority is given to the needs of the child and maintaining its stability as far as possible and the needs of the parents are considered but are secondary . How else could it work, unless we expected the kids of the divorced to grow up on the streets? I think you'd want to take care of your child though even if that did happen.

Good luck. I think finding the right person is key here; sounds like you might have had some unfortunate encounters previously but that doesn't have to be how it always is.

Humdinger

Marriage is essentially ruled out unless we both have similar finances. So it's really a case of safeguarding against losses outside of marriage.

My understanding from this thread is safeguarding can be achieved by simply not letting the other person contribute towards the house.

I guess what I need to establish is how a child affects this situation. (The situation being a partner who lives with me, but doesn't contribute, yet has had a child under my roof, and then the relationship breaks down). What am I liable to lose under those circumstances?

jackieblack

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

:rotfl: Indeed. I know a lady who had a house, a car and a well-paying job when she married a chap with no house, a motorbike, and no job ...

That sounds like me 28 years ago!

(The marriage lasted about 24 years)

Primrose

Whilst I accept this question is primarily about a financial issue, if the Other Person is contemplating entering into another "live in" relationship, can I pose this question?

if he wants to exclude his "live in" partner from benefitting from any financial compensation, will he equally be prepared to exclude her from being liable for any moral commitment to care for him if his health breaks down with cancer, motor neurone disease, a stroke or he becomes permanently unemployed through injury in a serious accident? Does he agree that in these circumstances, even though she is an equal earner, she should be free to walk away from him with her life totally intact without any moral commitment to him?

He could have all his red lines in place and still find that genuine relationships are not just about money and finance but moral issues too.