If she stopped working to raise THEIR kids while he continued working with no impact on his job at all, the judge most certainly can and typically does take that into account when awarding child support and determining the timeframe she will have to find a job, home she can afford, etc. Everyone is acting as though this is all on the woman to figure it out. No. The father was able to maintain his job with no childcare expenses whatsoever because she stayed home to care for their kids. The judge considers all this, marriage or no marriage.

OP how are you doing?

Yeah do you guys really think if the guy was willing to marry her she would be in this position?

He clearly wasn't interested in marriage, probably for this exact reason. When they split, he's only responsible for the kids. OP gets nothing. He's not going to get married just because she brings it up now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Push marriage. Then you are protected in divorce.

Yes. OP, ask a lawyer how your situation might be different if you were married. If you would fare better, consider marriage.

Is this a joke? She thinks the guy might toss her out.Why would he possibly marry her?

I'm guessing they had that fight a long time ago, and she lost.

Op without a job/income or a place to live you are at risk of him getting full custody if he wants it. If you think he's moving to a split, get a job NOW so that you are covered in the event he asks you to leave.

Anonymous wrote:Push marriage. Then you are protected in divorce.

Yes. OP, ask a lawyer how your situation might be different if you were married. If you would fare better, consider marriage.

Why would you stake so much risk without the protection of marriage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let this be a lesson to you about the dangers of giving the milk away for free!

Unfortunately, some have to learn the hard way. Society still looks down on women who have children out of wedlock.

How about the man who also had children "out of wedlock." What a stupid term to still be using.

I also am not married to my partner but we are still together and I work full time so do not have the same financial concers. It is my understanding that if we split up, child support and nothing else. I would hope your partner would not just turn you out on the street with two young children. Hopefully, you could reach an understanding re: timing of finding new housing.

+1. My ex-partner and I have 2 children. I get child support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let this be a lesson to you about the dangers of giving the milk away for free!

Unfortunately, some have to learn the hard way. Society still looks down on women who have children out of wedlock.

How about the man who also had children "out of wedlock." What a stupid term to still be using.

I also am not married to my partner but we are still together and I work full time so do not have the same financial concers. It is my understanding that if we split up, child support and nothing else. I would hope your partner would not just turn you out on the street with two young children. Hopefully, you could reach an understanding re: timing of finding new housing.

Do you think that he might actually kick you out of the house, OP? Is there a place you can stay while you look for a job?

Your rights are “depends on where you are and if you have a cohabitation agreement”

Your rights are also in favour of your children, regardless.

I saved a ton of money when I split up with my ex because we weren't married. The 3 friends I have who most recently divorced spent tens of thousands on lawyers.

Backward legal system. In most western countries, your relationship would be recognized as a de facto marriage and you would have the rights to assets accumulated during marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let this be a lesson to you about the dangers of giving the milk away for free!

Unfortunately, some have to learn the hard way. Society still looks down on women who have children out of wedlock.

I don't see it as looking "down" on a woman to say she doesn't have the right to her non-husband's house if she leaves him. It's his house. Why would she have a right to it (or at least any more right than a tenant would have)? She will get child support. The child-having aspect is actually the part that gives her some rights.

Anonymous wrote:Let this be a lesson to you about the dangers of giving the milk away for free!

Unfortunately, some have to learn the hard way. Society still looks down on women who have children out of wedlock.