View Full Version : Financial and legal i,plications of non-married unions
iris lilies
5-14-16, 11:56am
I am thinking about all of the young men and women who are living together, having children, or are even NOT living together and having children.
I cant grok their attitude which appears to me to be disregarding financial safety nets both private and governmental that aid wives and children, as well them having a general dependence on the older generation.
Specifically, I wonder about these situations:
1) when a father of a child dies, does the kid get Social Security if parents were not married?
2) pension and death benefits--are there provisions for Significant Others to get benefits?
3) if the adults never marry, they dont have access to the other person's Social Security benefit
This came up for me because someone we know died of cancer, and he married his SO on his deathbed so she could get some kind of benefit, dont know what it was. I thought they said Social Security, but dont you have to be married ten years before accessing that benefit?
I suppose the real answer is that young people of reproductive age are not thinking about finances at the end of life.
But, I am also shocked at how casually to many of them (I know three at the moment) assume their baby boomer parents will support them financially while they have babies, sometimes without a stable partner. Our niece just announced she is pregnant, she lives with her parents. Her boyfriend is in the picture but he is not paying anything toward a roof over kids head.
These are random thoughts, feel free to discuss them or related issues.
sweetana3
5-14-16, 12:05pm
Two sets of Friends of ours were living together in their 50s. One after another they got married to get the benefits mentioned re SSA and medical. Also simplifies inheritance and IRA issues.
Another set of young adults (self supporting) did not get married until their daughter started to ask questions. They both were in good jobs and she had issues with marriage and divorce due to her parents and other relatives. They finally got married privately and had a nice party.
I think you only have to be married so long if you divorce to collect your former spouse's SSA benefit.
But in the end, I don't think very many people think about or plan for the future.
ApatheticNoMore
5-14-16, 12:26pm
Might one not at a certain point end up common law married anyway whether or not one wants to be? There are probably times when not marrying is a wise financial move, one partner has lots of assets, the other lots of debt, it wouldn't make sense for the better off partner to take on that debt. That's very cynical and money rather than love focused of course ...
Here in Canada, some of those things fall under federal jurisdiction and there are certain benefits for "common-law" couples. Also employers often follow the federal standards - for example, I start to get spousal benefits through boyfriend's employer at 12 months of living together.
However, a whole bunch of those are provincially regulated, and each province/territory varies. It's really important to look up the specific family laws for unmarried couples in the particular province of residence. Or really, consult a lawyer if the situation is complex/kids are involved.
I'm usually quite surprised how many couples, especially with kids, don't have a will, guardianship documents, etc. Or even life insurance. I'm such a big planner, and interested in such things; I can't imagine not thinking about such matters until it's too late.
iris lilies
5-14-16, 12:31pm
Might one not at a certain point end up common law married anyway whether or not one wants to be? There are probably times when not marrying is a wise financial move, one partner has lots of assets, the other lots of debt, it wouldn't make sense for the better off partner to take on that debt. That's very cynical and money rather than love focused of course ...
The gubmnt programs
I'm thinking of requires the hard evidence of a legal marriage status.
Commonlaw marriages are not as real as many think they are. And they vary from state to state.
Might one not at a certain point end up common law married anyway whether or not one wants to be? There are probably times when not marrying is a wise financial move, one partner has lots of assets, the other lots of debt, it wouldn't make sense for the better off partner to take on that debt. That's very cynical and money rather than love focused of course ...
That's certainly a big concern as well. Just Not getting legally married, doesn't mean your assets/debts/income won't ever be considered jointly, depending on where you live. People don't realize the possible repercussions of "shacking up".
But, I am also shocked at how casually to many of them (I know three at the moment) assume their baby boomer parents will support them financially while they have babies, sometimes without a stable partner. Our niece just announced she is pregnant, she lives with her parents. Her boyfriend is in the picture but he is not paying anything toward a roof over kids head.
These are random thoughts, feel free to discuss them or related issues.
Random question re your random thought...Can you define "young people?" You mention baby boomer parents which would make these young people in their 40s-ish and should have their financial house in a bit more order than say a younger people generation of Millennials who probably have student loans at the top of their financial priorities.
As far as the OP's original questions: yes kids get a survivorship benefit, and no, livng together doesn't qualify you to receive your partners ss. As far as I know, you just have to be married to get survivor benefits as a spouse, the 10 year number is if you were divorced. As long as you were married for 10 year, you can collect on your divorced spouse.
ApatheticNoMore
5-14-16, 1:25pm
Random question re your random thought...Can you define "young people?" You mention baby boomer parents which would make these young people in their 40s-ish and should have their financial house in a bit more order than say a younger people generation of Millennials who probably have student loans at the top of their financial priorities.
nah what is the cut off for baby boomers. If one is 60 now is one a baby boomer? Then one could easily have a 25 year old kid if they had a kid at 35 and a 20 year old kid if they had a kid at 40. The father of course could be 70 something and have a 20 year old kid.
ToomuchStuff
5-14-16, 1:41pm
Iris, in a journalistic ObeWan Kenobi voice...............
Use the source.
https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourchildren.html
Now number two and number three, are a different ball game. For one, since same sex marriage is now legal, things are and have changed and will continue to do so (as well as having future legal challenges). While pensions have to be legal, if there are death benefits, then they go to who they are contracted to. (like a will, you have to stay on top of things in case of divorce, etc). I had a firefighter friend, who died without changing his benefit. His ex ended up with it and his current wife got nothing, until the wrongful death suit was hashed out.
Number three will vary from state to state. As an example, in a state with common law marriage, a couple living together could argue they were legally married and legally entitled. They wouldn't even have to be different sexes. (now Tony Randall's character could argue that he is entitled to survivor benefits under Jack Klugman's benefits, since they lived together long enough to be common law couple).
As said, there are reasons not to get married. I had some extended family, that divorced, and dated each other for the rest of their lives. The paper got in the way. (has in a few others as well)
Then as others mentioned, credit/debt status. One friend had remarried and they kept things separate, due to his business. Worked out great for her, as he inherited close to $1million dollars, and stupidly tried to help one of his kids, so within a year, he only had a dog to his name after court judgements.
That doesn't even cover divorce rates, what kids have experienced because of them, changing values, etc.
Responsible adults see to their own financial security, whether married or not. And to any minor children's.
Teacher Terry
5-14-16, 3:37pm
It seems to be the thing to have a couple of kids and then finally marry with the kids there. Ugh! If my kids did that I would not be happy. I also have seen a few where the girl has babies and her boomer parents are supporting them all. Later in life people sometimes have good reasons not to marry for financial reasons. For my 3rd hubby and I we lived together for 5 years but then married. Now we can each get the entire pension if one of us dies. Not the reason we married but a definite benefit. In the states I think it is pretty hard to find yourself common law married while in canada it appears to be pretty easy in some provinces.
frugal-one
5-14-16, 8:28pm
As Iris Lily stated ... common law marriage is not a given in the US ... it varies state by state.
iris lilies
5-14-16, 8:38pm
Random question re your random thought...Can you define "young people?" You mention baby boomer parents which would make these young people in their 40s-ish and should have their financial house in a bit more order than say a younger people generation of Millennials who probably have student loans at the top of their financial priorities.
The young people I am thinking of are 20 -25 and their parents are 53 - 61. Those are boomers, the parents. And the kid have no student loans because they either are not going to school or their parents are paying for everything.
iris lilies
5-14-16, 8:41pm
Might one not at a certain point end up common law married anyway whether or not one wants to be? There are probably times when not marrying is a wise financial move, one partner has lots of assets, the other lots of debt, it wouldn't make sense for the better off partner to take on that debt. That's very cynical and money rather than love focused of course ...
Oh yeah, I see what you mean. Someone might deliberately decide to not be married but common law kicks in. Hmmm, that would be interesting.
I guess thats the issue with the big palimony lawsuits of celebrities some years ago. One spouse deliberately did not marry but the other one sued for marriage-like benefits.
kestra, interesting that you can get spousal benedits after 12 months.
My sister has been living with her partner for a dozen years now, I think. DS has never married and has no plans to marry this guy. Her partner has had three marriages and divorces and also has no plans to ever marry.
The state they live in is not a common-law state. They say they've done all the necessary legal work to share in pensions, visit in the hospital (they're not family in the eyes of the law), etc. I doubt either one of them has ever asked a financial planner about Social Security benefits -- and he's 66. Don't know if she doesn't care or doesn't want to think about it.
My mom wants them to get married because she's old-fashioned that way. At this point I see them together till death do them part anyway. But it's DS' life. If she feels marrying this guy would be a stranglehold on both of them, then marrying is not advisable. But I wonder if there will be some "gotcha" at some point that makes either one of them wish they'd formalized the union.
iris lilies
5-14-16, 9:02pm
Iris, in a journalistic ObeWan Kenobi voice...............
Use the source.
https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourchildren.html
etc.
ok, thanks. that led me to the pages about survivor benefits and "natural" children. As another poster said, children from unions not recognized by the state may get social security benefits when a parent dies.
I been wondering about the children of young men who are shot dead at an erly agw. They often leave a few babies behind, from multiple mothers. I was wondering how the soc sec benefits were meted out.
flowerseverywhere
5-14-16, 9:42pm
I live in a 55+ community and many people live together. Some don't marry because they can collect bigger SS off an ex-spouse or they will lose exes health insurance benefit. There are quite a few young people in their 20's who live with their parents.
Many years ago my son had not known his now wife of 10+ years for long when he called to say she was moving in. He worked for a company that provided health insurance to a live in immediately. she is a lovely hard working young woman so we sure are glad it turned out.
The OP's questions also leave me in wonder. A couple often provides tax benefits, and gbmt benefits if one passes. Financial security for the children. But as long as parents put up with it it has to satisfy some of their needs I would think.
kestra, interesting that you can get spousal benedits after 12 months.
One the flip side, after 12 months you are considered married for tax calculations and the family, rather than individual income, is used for certain tax credits. So you pay a bit more tax. It makes minimal difference for most people. But the government recognizes that living as a couple, whether legally married or not results in the same thing as far as household income. Which makes logical sense IMO. I always find it strange that in the US you can choose how to file, and I assume can only file as married, if legally so.
TVRodriguez
5-21-16, 2:21pm
All of this is way too much up my alley, professionally, and I think I'd have too much to say if I started to answer, so I'll just say that I've seen a bunch of times when people do not pay enough attention to the laws that apply to them and make all sorts of assumptions that "things will be fine," and make major mistakes that cause major (not to mention expensive) problems for themselves or their loved ones down the line . . .
ToomuchStuff
5-21-16, 6:59pm
I been wondering about the children of young men who are shot dead at an erly agw. They often leave a few babies behind, from multiple mothers. I was wondering how the soc sec benefits were meted out.
I think that would depend on how young the men were! My understanding is your not entitled to SS until so many quarters have been paid in. So if they died before that, then they may get state benefits (welfare), but would not be entitled to federal benefits.
Teacher Terry
5-22-16, 1:27pm
when people die their kids get $ from SS no matter how many they have or if they paid in enough. They also get some type of benefit if they attend college.
iris lilies
5-22-16, 3:19pm
when people die their kids get $ from SS no matter how many they have or if they paid in enough. They also get some type of benefit if they attend college.
So, it is possible that gang banger's kids are better off with their father dead, they get benefits until they are 18.
Other income welfare programs have a shorter lifespan.
Teacher Terry
5-22-16, 5:35pm
Exactly and if they go to college they get $ until age 22.
A big consideration for older couples regards what will happen if one of them gets very ill. In the US if you are married, your entire estate (from both spouses) has to be spent down to a very low level before Medicare will pay for nursing home. A number of other benefits are at risk. Long Term Care insurance helps with that, but it is very expensive and there are many problems with it---another whole discussion.
Teacher Terry
5-22-16, 6:27pm
True but in many cases being married is the only way you can leave a pension to a person. Pros and cons to everything.
There are also domestic partnerships for older people, that establish them as a unit for health care decisions, but I don't know the other particulars.
Miss Cellane
5-23-16, 6:30am
The last three weddings of "young people" (under 40) that I've attended, the couples have followed pretty much the same path.
Move in together.
Buy a house together.
Have a baby. (Optional step.)
Get married.
And, yeah, I wonder if they do the correct paperwork when they buy the house together. What if they never get married, and then split up? Of course, they are madly in love and think such a thing can't happen, so why bother to plan for it?
My brother was living with a woman, divorced, one adorable child, for four years. Then she accidentally got pregnant, and they decided to get married. My brother wanted to adopt the first child, to secure his position in the family--DB had been in the boy's life since he was 6 months old, and the biological father was not in the picture. Sister-in-law had all sorts of reasons why to delay the adoption.
They got divorced when that child was 14. Because my brother is not the biological father, he could not get visitation rights. It still hurts him that he can't see the child he thinks of as his own son, that he cared for all those years. I still count him as one of my nephews, even though I haven't seen him in 10 years.
There are consequences of your actions, and your inactions.
Teacher Terry
5-23-16, 2:37pm
If he had adopted him he would have had to pay child support for him. Now that the kid is an adult he can see who he wants.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.