The article calls them "engaged", however, she states she will "never get married". My opinion is that they are likely NOT "engaged" in the sense of the word most of us know "engaged" to be, i.e. ring, party dress, yada yada, but are using the word to gain leverage in this issue. It's also evident, or at least suspect, that since the first child has a different daddy, we can assume child support from Daddy #1 no longer in the picture. If she was to marry, the step father's salary would be an issue and she would get LESS child support. Might not even be able to make the house note.
Good analysis. I wonder if they bought the house under false pretenses - claiming to the seller they were engaged while knowing full well that they wouldn't be able to make payments if they were married.