to be a sham even though I can't afford it?

[Picoo]

I would really like to stay at home with my DS I don't really enjoy my job and I would like to be a full time mummy. The thing is we could only just about afford it. We would have to pay interest only on our mortgage, give up insurance such as health and maybe house insuranc my husband would have to work longer hours, etc. We would be pretty poor, and we have zero savings, but at least I would be with DS.

Is it crazy to live a poor existence but be there for DS, or should I go back to work and be more financially secure?

Wow Amazingg, you are really in a position where you know enough about every single family to say that having a SAHM is best for their children? I find that very hard to believe I must admit. I work, almost full time shifts, as does DH. When one of us is at work, the other is at home, meaning DS is always looked after by one of us. On the rare times we are both working my Mum has him. Is that really so bad? Should I give up work, and let DH do it all?

Personally I think I am very lucky, as are DH and DS, as we all get a good balance. I think you have a very narrow world view if you think that there is a one size fits all approach to raising children.

I do find the government position slightly sinister of targeting free childcare to underprivileged areas.

In one way it is good allowing people back into work but in another way it seems to suggest this section of people cannot parent adequately, by default of where they live, which is wrong.

I also do not see why nursery for the very early years is better than good parenting. Often the staff are under qualified (not legally but in experience IYSWIM) and underpaid, not always but often.

The one benefit of nursery is that it gives each child a similar background socially and educationally which means there will be less variation between children when starting school. However this is just different and not necessarily better than what can be provided at home.

So a woman returning to work does so for herself and not her kids therefore making her selfish .... Yet expecting your husband to work all hours just because he is male is not selfish in the slightest

Some mums return to work for themselves, others do it to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. How does that not benefit the children?

Suprised so many children are allowed to go to school, guides etc given only parents can look after them adequately.

Amazinggg, i highly doubt your child as an adult will have any memories of being a toddler and wont give a monkeys who was home with him at 18 months as long as he is fed and cared for.

SAHMs dont just walk back into jobs either at the moment, its an employers market and most would rather have recent experience over an unemployed person out of the workplace for a while.

No, it's not all about me amazinegg. It was all about looking after the whole family's needs. If I had been in a situation where my children would have had a less good experience in any way through spending some time with their cm and at nursery, we would have had to rethink. Maybe DH would have had to go part time too. Maybe one of us would have had to stop working. If I had been unable to cope with the organisational demands of working with young children then we'd have had to rethink.
But as my children had an equally good experience overall (spending some time in childcare and some with me) as they would have done if I'd been home 24/7, we made a decision as a family that the optimum thing was for me to work part time. It's a decision I've never regretted at all. Happy children, happy mum.

How can anyone possibly disagree with that? Unless, of course, they think they know my children and my family better than Dh and i do, which would be really really odd. ....

If you're in the UK, then the health insurance is disposable, but you'd be foolish to put yourself in a position where you have no household insurance and even more foolish to go interest only on your mortgage for more than a very short term measure, without making plans to ensure oyu can pay it off.

Amazingg, you and Xenia would get along so well :o

Ignoring chunderella!

Smartie you have a brilliant balance and I'm envious. Some parents are totally fulfilled being SaH, tbh if DH and I could both work pt then that would be amazing. We also have no grandparents nearby.

Not sure why you'd think I would think anything other than positively of your situation! I think it suits some posters to paint me as someone who wants to chain mothers to the sink - not so. It's best for toddlers to have care from their parents. That's what you're doing. I'm currently on a train for a much needed wander around the shops while DH is looking after toddler - I do need some time to myself of I might go mad! So may not be around to reply. Please don't attack me personally - attack SAHMs if you must - I will defend later

Im a SAHM. I recently reworked our finances. I personally believe my children are better off me being at home with them but if Id gotten to the end of my latest appraisal of our finances and found wed be so cash strapped we'd have to get rid of life insurance and have no emergency fund what so ever, I'd be either staying in my job, looking for a different one, or Id be looking to see about going part time. There is mo way I would be willing to jeopardize or roof and security to that extent - even from my personal stance of believing my kids are better off at home with me.

Ourvye

It astonishes me how Xenia manages to reduce looking after a toddler to 'changing nappies and cleaning loos'.

It's mostly much more important and challenging than that.

I think the point is that you and Xenia are similar in assuming that there is ONE BEST way of doing things and that anyone who doesn't adhere to it is damaging their children.

Yy janey.

Amazing's pov is ridiculous, silly and downright offensive.

Yes, it's the evangelism of such blinkered views that they have in common, even though those views are polar opposites.

I am a SAHM/Carer. Our house is cheap and paid for, though, and we can afford it.

I think the point is that you and Xenia are similar in assuming that there is ONE BEST way of doing things and that anyone who doesn't adhere to it is damaging their children.

this.

Amazingg I think you are wrong to state that you "know it's by far the best thing" for every single toddler and every single family, yes. I like to think I have teeny bit more awareness of my own family's needs than you do, and I wouldn't presume to be so arrogant as to state categorically that I "know" what's best for your family.

I do in fact "know" that my DC have benefited enormously from the arrangements we had in their under-3 stages. If I'd stayed at home and "sacrificed" everything I would have been bored senseless, frustrated and unhappy. I would not have wanted my DC to be living in that environment.

As it was, they had me happy, fulfilled and glad to spend time with them part time, a wonderful nanny part time and that was definitely the best arrangement for our family.

Only read first and last page and its def gone downhill in between!

OP, work out your minimum cash glow required, add £100-£150 buffer per month. Whatever your DP earns under that amount, look for income streams to cover it.

When we first decided I'd be a sahm we calculated a £70 difference. I started doing some things to earn that, while still working as well, to prove I could do it.

Sadly we were both made redundant and baby due in Jan. but I've a few income streams and they have been a godsend.

I don't agree that it's by far the best thing for every single toddler either. I don't think long term it makes any difference whether the child was in childcare or not at an early age, neither of mine at 7 and 9 can remember anything that happened in their lives before they were about 3 years old. By far the best thing for our family was financial security, parents that weren't stressed because one of them might lose their job, or not be able to pay the mortgage and the memories of lots of great days out and holidays together that we could afford on two incomes. The days out and holidays are definitely the things that stick out in my DCs early memories.

If anything I think it is more important to have a parent around once they start school. I kept my original job after both DCs were born, reducing it to three days a week. Because I had done this, it was much easier to find a part time job in the same field that fitted school hours once they were both at school. The DCs are very happy that I am around for all their assemblies, sports days etc, things that they will remember long term. I have a career, a salary, a pension, we don't have to worry about money. Whereas those friends who became SAHM when their DCs were babies have more or less given up hope of ever finding a decent job again. Some of them are happy about this, some aren't, one size definitely doesn't fit all.

Amazinggg, you said: "The problem is that I don't see SAH and WOH as equal choices. They're just not. A SAHP is IMO always the best thing for the kid"

I am not attacking you personally at all, and I would certainly never attack SAHM's, its a perfectly valid choice! You sound happy you are doing the right thing for your family, but can you see that it is not as simple as either Mum stays at home or DC are in full time nursery. There are a whole range of options in between, and most families pick something that works for them.

Sorry I just realised I didn't respond to the OP at all. I would not become a SAHM if finances were that tight. There must be other options, even if it is just a part time job in the evening when DC's are in bed to keep some money coming in.

A sahm is not always best for the child. It definitely depends on the family.

I'd say from what you've posted, you can't afford it. Part time work?

amazing you have made this thread all about you
No one was having a go at SAHM but pointing out to the OP that in the circumstances she described it would be very irresponsible to give up work.
As for the all children are better with a SAHP -well perhaps you are very naive - there are lots of women ,including my own DM, where SAHP caused them serious mental health problems. My DM was not a good parent as a result and there are many parents who prefer the balance and challenge that WOH gives them . My DC have never been in childcare but I have yet to find a parent who thinks that childcare is an exact match for their parenting. They choose good quality childcare to ensure their child is safe, cared for and stimulated while they WOH . They continue to be the childs parents !
Ps WOHM - no holidays or designer nappy bags here

my priorities are bing on right.im a good mum,we are solvent,we are partners
I do not expect my dp to solely shoulder financial responsibility,we share it
looked at nurseries 8wk pg,nursery place booked 12wk.returned ft as per plan

I never expected or wanted childcare to be an 'exact match' for parenting. It isn't supposed to be. For my children, it meant spending time being safe, secure, cared for and stimulated for some of the time. I (and DH) continued to be their parents all of the time.

It wasnt second best at all: it worked brilliantly for us as a family. No doubt my children would also be fine if I hadn't worked... But I suspect my prospects in the longer term wouldn't be quite so good.

I'd never suggest for a moment that amazingg's child is getting a less good deal because she doesn't work, and frankly it's ludicrous that she thinks she can pontificate about other people's children

pragmatically,f you can't make end meet you don't give up work
you have a responsibility to adequately bring up ds,that includes adequate monies
chosing give up work with minimal back up is foolhardy.if in future circumstance change reconsider then