Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can he just kick me out of the house?

Does he own the house?

Yes.

Out of curiosity, why do you think you have rights to live in the house?

np why would you think the mother of his child has no rights to live in the house?

Isnt it obvious? They arent married and he owns the house. Depending on the state he may have to evict her which will buy her a little time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No this isn’t a lesson for anything because nobody has pointed out any better legal protections that OP would have if she were married.

For starters, she'd have rights to the house.

She'd have rights to anything earned or gained during the marriage. She'd be able to get his social security depending on how long they were married.

+1. You’re a moron if you’re a woman and have kids with a man you’re not married to.

What if the man you don't marry is substantially poorer than you?

OP, you already know this, but you need to seek the advice of a lawyer with specific knowledge of your jurisdiction.

You have the rights of a parent:custody, visitition, child support, etc.

You may or may not have any spousal rights eg.alimony or support, shared assets, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can he just kick me out of the house?

Does he own the house?

Yes.

Out of curiosity, why do you think you have rights to live in the house?

np why would you think the mother of his child has no rights to live in the house?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Canada went the other way. Unmarried partners have zero rights, no matter how long they have been married.

That’s actually not true. Quebec is especially u derstanding of the common law relationship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have no rights other than child support. To his is why you get married before having children!

+1. This is one of the main reasons LGBT community fought so hard for legal marriage. It's not just a piece of paper, it's a legal contract that gives protection and benefits to the people that enter into said contract.

Sure **yawn**

Your rights ate zero and do not be surprised if/when he asks for DNA tests for children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No this isn’t a lesson for anything because nobody has pointed out any better legal protections that OP would have if she were married.

For starters, she'd have rights to the house.

She'd have rights to anything earned or gained during the marriage. She'd be able to get his social security depending on how long they were married.

+1. You’re a moron if you’re a woman and have kids with a man you’re not married to.

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

+1. I don't understand why so many women make themselves so incredibly financially vulnerable...

Anonymous wrote: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.

If he wants custody, why would she get the kids and not him? Would he still have to pay child support if he has primary custody?

Anonymous wrote: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.

No it is not backwards. It is a smart system that keeps things less complicated.

Men and women these days often live with several different partners throughout their lives. Should they be required to the other person's property just because they live together a few years? Should you have access to someone's benefits like pensions, retirement accounts, health care and social security just because you live together? What if OP lives a few years with five different people over her lifetime, marrying none? Does she automatically deserve a piece of each of those people's wealth, savings and property?

Shared communal marital property and benefits are a big deal and something that is rightfully limited to those who took the time, effort and commitment to enter into a specific contract.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Canada went the other way. Unmarried partners have zero rights, no matter how long they have been married.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

No one knows why she stopped working. For all you know, it was her idea. Without a written agreement, her chances to get anything are slim.

Also, the man can ask for custody and get it.

Lawyer here and I agree with this. What you are talking about is what alimony is designed to ameliorate but here the parties are not married. Even if the man does not want custody at all and you look at the guidelines awards for the various income levels he would need to be making an exceptional amount of money for her not to experience a substantial decline in her standard of living. To the extent he requests custody this amount of course will decrease. The only silver lining here for OP is that he will most likely be responsible for a substantial portion of the daycare costs since those are distributed pro rata by income and her income will presumably be significantly less than his.

I am not married to my partner but we went to court just a month ago to get our rights in writing. We would have joint legal custody but I have sole physical custody while he has visitation. If you go to a mediator, they will help you put everything in writing.

Anonymous wrote: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.

No one knows why she stopped working. For all you know, it was her idea. Without a written agreement, her chances to get anything are slim.

Also, the man can ask for custody and get it.