I don't understand how people can give up their career and be a stay at home parent ?

[lolstevelol]

You risk losing career progression, especially as jobs change so rapidly due to technology. The role you were doing a few years ago might look completely different today. Securing a stable office job is much harder now than it used to be.

You also miss out on pension contributions, which is a significant factor. Losing 5–10 years of contributions and compounding can be the difference between retiring at 58 and having to work until or beyond the state pension age.

Generally speaking, supporting a family on a single income while working can be more stressful than being a stay-at-home parent. Even when the job itself is manageable, workplace environments can be toxic, which can create tension and resentment between the working parent and the stay-at-home parent.

I adopted two children who had been severely neglected and was adamant that I would not give up work - i arranged to work part time. But the children could not manage childcare and childcare couldnt manage them, and we realised that they needed a stay at home parent to provide them with any chance of healing.

I gave up an extremely well paid job in finance to do this. I was commuting into London and my husband was driving to a town in the opposite direction - it simply wasn't practical given the children's needs, all the meetings, appointments etc.

So anyway I stayed at home and I never regretted it. We have saved the country a lot of money as otherwise the children would have been in long term foster care and I suspect their outcomes would have been dire, possibly involving the criminal justice system.

But they have done really well in fact - they are both adults now.

So I may not have paid tax but have contributed in other ways. And I was able to keep things like swimming lessons at school going by being available to help when most other parents had returned to work.

I think most people can accept that there’s a difference between staying at home to care for a disabled child who can’t access childcare, and staying at home because you want to.

Like you, I have a vulnerable child - he can’t access before or after school clubs, and can only attend very specific and tailored holiday schemes. As a younger child, he could access nursery a maximum of 3 days a week, and never for full days.

Staying at home in those circumstances is very, very different to staying at home because you would prefer not to work. That’s not a necessity in anywhere near the same way.

My son can’t attend most childcare settings, which is different to preferring not to send him. And I still wouldn’t ask to be paid the equivalent cost of childcare if I kept him at home, in much the same way I don’t get a carers wage for the care he requires.

But you’d rather private school at secondary than every minute watching them grow from babies?

I’m teaching my Dd that she can have/do and be whatever she wants to, this does not mean something as soulless as just a job and lots of money, there is much more to life

But it’s not just ‘Preferring not to work’
The early years with my Dd were the best years of my life overall, however they were also hard, there were times I missed my job, having time away, being my own person, spending money on myself. It was a sacrifice though, all of it as I didn’t want her looked after by someone else and didn’t want to miss anything and believe being with mum is best if possible. Nothing about it was merely‘Preferring not to work’

Why not? The former is for the benefit of the child and the latter is for the benefit of the parent.

Benefit of the parent?? So it wouldn’t be for the benefit of the child to be with its mother for the most important, early years? It would benefit them to be away from them with strangers being paid to look after them

“Staying at home in those circumstances is very, very different to staying at home because you would prefer not to work. ”

I didn’t stay at home because ‘I preferred not to work’. I stayed at home because I wanted to bring up my children and be there day-to-day.

Ironically, unless you have family to look after your children, the ironic thing is that you have to Pay people to look after your children, thus recognising that is indeed ‘work’ to look after children!

Not necessarily. A young child can be well looked after by a caring set of adults, not just the mother.

Why did I find this thread only now, in the midst of an insomnia episode, and the whole thing made my blood boil so much that now I’m wide awake?

It’s surprising how many people still overlook work-from-home jobs in 2026. This is exactly the kind of thing that fuels AI’s rise-we act like it’s not even there. AI notices our flaws, how easily humans can decline, and how quickly we forget, even about something as huge as the internet.

I’m a stay-at-home mom who also works remotely, and most SAHMs I know do the same. We just don’t always broadcast it because, honestly, people can be pretty judgmental. Not everyone feels the need to explain their choices, and places like Mumsnet are very tough for SAHMs, especially when others don’t relate to the “staying home” lifestyle. Women are each other’s harshest and most intense critics.

Families have different priorities, and for some, stepping back from paid work is a temporary shift or a new direction, not a loss. Many make the choice with full awareness, balancing shared income and lower childcare costs against the trade-offs. Stress levels vary, career paths aren’t always straight, and the key is understanding it’s not for everyone but it’s far from incomprehensible.

I always find these threads quite naval gazing.
It's obvious that unless a person's circumstances are extreme any baby and small child needs a parent more than anyone or anything ( main caregiver ) .
Full time nursery and child care should always be. Last resort.
Tiny babies and esp non verbal small children are among the most vulnerable species on the planet !
They can't advocate for themselves !

Being a parent means making decisions both in the short and long term.
Those decisions include how you will provide for your children financially not just while they are babies but when they are older. It involves decisions around where you want to live, where you want them to go to school as well as the needs of the family as a whole.

For my family it has worked best that both me and DH continued to work. We chose our childcare carefully and genuinely believe that the choice we made was beneficial for DS.

Other families make different choices and I fully respect that. However, I’m sick and tired of people telling posters that childcare should be a ‘last resort’ or questioning why women (and it’s always women) choose to have children and then go out to work.

If you don’t want to work or don’t want to use childcare that your choice. But stop judging people for choosing something different.

I don't understand how people can put a few years of their career above raising their children. You have 50 years to chase your career, taking 5 or 10 years out to raise your kids should be a no brainer. If you'd rather not then you probably shouldn't have children at all.

Live to work or work to live.

(assuming you’re a parent)

How did you pay your bills for 5-10 years if you were unemployed?

Did you tell DH that when he went back to work? Or does it only apply to women?

this poster may be a man according to their username? I guess they took those years off to raise their children, as they say. I am unfortunately not independently wealthy enough not to have an income for 10 years and beyond.

🙄

A few years out of my career would be career suicide.

Not to mention I’m still raising my child if I’m working. Being a parent isn’t about being physically next to them 24/7. It’s also providing a home, food and making decisions about childcare and school.

That’s simply not true in all cases.

I have a 9 year who until last year shouted at us for leaving the room, and tried to kick the bathroom door down when we showered etc.

He does not need us next to him at all times because he’s vulnerable, it is because he’s vulnerable that he needs a breadth of people, experiences and settings.

His attachment to his preferred adults is unhealthy, and limited for him. Us leaving him with other adults is actually better for his independence later in life.

You can't look at things in isolation like that though. Would my DC as babies preferred me at home? Probably, their needs are quite basic, after all. But is it better for them now they are (pre)teens that they went to our lovely childminder and I continued working? Undoubtedly.

Because I went back to work PT after taking a year's mat leave with my first dd, realised she was more fun than work and my wages were basically paying her nursery fees so I left and we cut our cloth accordingly (yes, it was tight, but little ones are only little for so long and you'll never have that time back) and I went back to work once she started school (different job, with hours that fitted around the school drop offs/pick ups).
People have different priorities.

Possibly. Even if that's the case, clearly the vast majority of people need some kind of income.

Part of raising children is providing for them financially.

I was really responding to the poster who said that we were costing the country money by giving up well paid jobs and no longer paying tax, like that is the only way to financially contribute.

I have been criticised to my face for (1) not using my degree and all that education i received (2) not being a good role model to my children (3) being lazy (4) not paying my way (5) being a "kept woman" (someone said that to me at a coffee morning!).

The issue is that women can't win either way and are judged no matter what they do which isn't the case when men become parents.

Working mothers are also criticised plenty. Especially women who work because they want to, not because they have to.

State support for working parents is now accepted in the form of nursery subsidies.
I believe that state support should be there for staying at home to look after children. This could take the form of a set number of years (possibly 5) of a Family Allowance. Parents could choose to use this 5 years worth in one block or take bits of it at different times if they had more than one child. They could choose who went to work or whether both went part time.
Essentially I am talking about paid child care leave. This would be the state investing in children in a broader sense than the current subsidy which is loaded towards parents going to work.