For those who have baby with SO but aren't married

[ProfNot]

Would you please explain to me why you have a baby with your SO when you are not married?

My male cousin is doing this and I just don't understand it. They just had a second baby last month. When I ask why they aren't married, he just says they don't feel like it and changes the subject.

They live in a state that does not recognize "common law" marriage. The house is in his name only. That means if he breaks up with her, he gets the house and only owes her child support if he gets less than half custody. No alimony. Even if they have been together for years and years.

I think I would understand if they signed a contract about what would happen if they split up. But they don't feel like doing that, either.

I'm not asking about religious reasons to marry or not marry.

If the couple is gay, that makes sense. They aren't allowed to marry in most states. But I would hope they would have some sort of "what if" contract.

My cousing isn't a bad guy but he is lazy. So why would the SO/Mom put herself in that vulnerable position?

I know that SOs having kids is getting more and more popular. So there must be a reason. It's like there is an elephant in my livingroom and I just don't see it.

Would someone please explain to me why having a baby with an SO without being married is a good idea?

Thanks!!!!!

 

[Beach Bum]

To each his own!!LOL!
Every one lives their life according to what makes them happy....
I guess its not for us to understand...

 

[batgirl0711]

I don't know why. I understand where you are coming from regarding the legal issues. Thats why I want to get married, not for religious purposes but for rights.

 

[HauteMama]

I cannot answer the question, either. I guess it is the prerogative of the couple, provided both of them understand the legal ramifications if they split. If only one name is on the vehicles or the residence, it can become very tricky. Many people claim that marriage is "just a piece of paper" and perhaps as far as emotional attachment goes, it is. But it does provide a lot of protections and some liabilities (joint property also means joint debt in many cases) that people should be aware of.

 

[Roo]

Just because it is not a common law marriage state, does not mean the other party can't sue for palimony. It happens all the time. I have read a lot about unmarried couples with children and the number one reason they've cited for remaining unmarried is that they get more help with health insurance and living expenses via social welfare programs if they are unmarried.

 

[ProfNot]

Just because it is not a common law marriage state, does not mean the other party can't sue for palimony. It happens all the time. I have read a lot about unmarried couples with children and the number one reason they've cited for remaining unmarried is that they get more help with health insurance and living expenses via social welfare programs if they are unmarried.

Yes, my first thought upon hearing that they had the first baby without being married was that she was going to try for welfare income as a single mum. But no. They haven't sought any help except for state health insurance for her and only when she had to go to the ER once. The father's employer covers health insurance for him and the baby. They have never applied for food stamps or anything.

I really am mystified as to what they are doing and why.

I would truly like to gain some insight on this.

Thanks for your posts!

 

[Irishgal]

^^Have you asked them?

 

[ProfNot]

Just because it is not a common law marriage state, does not mean the other party can't sue for palimony.

Sueing and winning can be done. Collecting is another story.

It makes sense in theory but my male cousin's mother tried to sue his father for child support and alimony and never got a nickel. She would sue and win but could never collect. Cousin's father was clever about hiding income and switching jobs to avoid having his wages liened. What my cousin's father did is an open fact known throughout the extended family, including my cousin's SO.

So this young mum has allied herself with a young man whose father was a bum to his wife and kids.

My cousin's history with his deadbeat dad makes me think he would be careful to not do that to his SO or child. So why didn't he marry her? He is putting her in an even more vulnerable position than his mum was in with him and his brother.

I am still mystified. Would someone please explain this to me?

TIA!

 

[jillybean307]

Sometimes it's not planned. I don't know. To some people marriage isn't the be all and end all of a relationship. With the divorce rate being what it is, marriage doesn't mean your relationship is going to last. If a couple loves each other, isn't it really just a piece of paper from the government?

If you're close to your cousin, maybe you can ask him? He'd be the best one to give you a clear answer.

I agree with Jill in that it's a 'to each his own' situation.

 

[Roo]

I just got married in January of 2006 after living with my SO for almost a decade. We got married primarily because of the way the inheritance laws are structured. If he were to die, I would have to fight in court for my half of the assets I've worked for because he has children from a previous marriage (they would be his legal heirs). We found that as we've acquired assets, this became more complicated for us as an unmarried couple. Now we can set things up in trust so the assets move from him to me (or visa versa) and then to his kids when we are both gone. I don't have kids and we don't plan to have any together. It will be interesting though, to see how much of a tax hit we take for 2006 since we'll be filing jointly for the first time.

If it were not for these issues, we'd still be living together and unmarried. We considered ourselves married already, and often referred to each other as the other's 'wife' or 'husband' anyway.

 

[elongreach]

Sometimes it's not planned. I don't know. To some people marriage isn't the be all and end all of a relationship. With the divorce rate being what it is, marriage doesn't mean your relationship is going to last. If a couple loves each other, isn't it really just a piece of paper from the government?

If you're close to your cousin, maybe you can ask him? He'd be the best one to give you a clear answer.

I agree with Jill in that it's a 'to each his own' situation.

Totally agree!

 

[D & G rockstar]

I agree w/ jill - to each their own. but it seems like she is totally fine w/ the situation. I wouldn't want to get married to someone ONLY because I had their baby.... there would have to be other factors.

 

[LouisLady]

IMO, I think that if they are together and there for their kids, then its all good. It would be different if they werent together with kids.

 

[madamefifi]

I agree w/ jill - to each their own. but it seems like she is totally fine w/ the situation. I wouldn't want to get married to someone ONLY because I had their baby.... there would have to be other factors.

My question is, why would you have a baby with someone to whom you couldn't or wouldn't make a legal commitment? It just seems unwise to me. Having a baby is a HUGE responsibility and...oh I guess I'm just being old-fashioned. I just believe that people should make more of an effort somehow.

 

[Megs]

I do not find fault with the situation, but the finances are what could be the problem. And this would make me wonder if they have looked into it or not- it could get sticky with money if anything were to happen, from a break up to death. I am very financially minded, so that is my thought