To think if you're married there's no risk to be a SAHM?

[southparkroses]

I keep reading on here that it's risky for the woman to give up work to look after children, but if you're married, isn't that protection enough?

Well no. What if once you divorce your settlement isnt enough to live on/support your kids on? Once you separate more often than not you will have to return to work. If you have been out of the job market for a while it wont be easy or quick.

Only if you never get divorced and then have to find a job with a massive gap in employment history and your skills out of date.
Or as long as your husband doesn't turn out to be a total turd and controlling about money.

You only need to browse relationships to see how many married women have no access to money and have to go without while his nibs is splurging on whatever he wants.
Oh, also if he dies without a life insurance policy.

Your earning potential may fall while off work. That’s a key risk.

Well, it’ll still bugger up your career. I left teaching for 5 years to be a SAHM and found that no one was interested when I started to apply for jobs again. I would have had to do voluntary work etc to build my profile up again but I couldn’t afford childcare to do so.
In my case I set up my own tutoring business around the kids and have ended up earning more than I would have done as a teacher ( and much fewer hours) so it worked out ok in the end. Plus I have got to spend all my time with my kids (or they are with DH) so we ever had to pay for childcare etc.
So, in the end, it worked out fine but I was panicking for a bit. I won’t lie.

Of course it is a risk, you could wreck your career and then get divorced. Your Ex will then have to support his children, but not you. Unless he is mega mega wealthy and can't hide his assets its a massive risk.

YABU. Of course there’s a risk. If you divorce, more than likely you will need to return to work and if you’ve been out of work for a long time any skills and experience you have will be outdated and probably irrelevant. You’d be starting from scratch.

echoing PP, the risk is divorce and/or being financially abused.

plus, what if your husband becomes unemployed?

The courts are increasingly less likely to award spousal maintenance now, so you might be given a share of the family home/savings/pension but your ex won't be made to pay you maintenance. You'd be expected to get a job, and PP have covered why this is hard.

I'm a SAHM myself. I'm happy with the risk.

Yabu of course there's a risk. Even if you don't get divorced, there's lot of power imbalance with one being the financial earner vs the person unemployed at home for years. Look how many people get cheated on or treated badly but they stay because they are financially dependent on their spouse.

Your husband could die
He could leave you
You could leave him
He could lose his job
He could resign because he hates his job
He could get ill
Your DC might get ill and need support you can't get from the NHS
Your DH might resent you leaving him with all the stress of providing for the family
You might run into financial problems.
You might have to pay for care for other family members

The list of why you might not want to give up your job is a long one. But if you're sure your future will be full of rainbows and fairy godmothers granting wishes, then you're right - giving up your job is entirely without risk. Go for it.

The risk is less than if not married but still a risk.

When my ex-husband traded me in (for an older model just to be a bit different) without telling me he opened a sole bank account and redirected his salary into it. My only bank account was our joint account and I was a SAHM. I had a period of about 3 months where I had no access to any money at all. Eventually I too opened a sole account (that took ages because all the proof of address bills were in his name) and got our child benefit put into it, then got a job too. But until that happened, I had to meet my elderly parents at the motorway services for them to lend me cash. I was so humiliated to even involve them.

So my advice to you is consider the immediate practicalities if you split, because you might be entitled to half the assets but that doesn't put food on the table if you can't get to it. It also doesn't pay initially for a shit-hot solicitor that doesn't come cheap. Always make sure you have some money in your own name. Also, never believe that it won't happen to you.

Yes it is a great risk. Perhaps you've never seen how this plays out in real life when marriages break down and the female has been a SAHM for years with little career options?

I know if my dh walked out on me tomorrow, or died, or lost his job etc, then I could pay the mortgage and all the billls and look after my dc without help from him (I earn more anyway). Personally it gives me a sense of pride and security that I know I can do this on my own if I need to. The risk in our marriage is shared.

If your marriage goes pear shaped it's harder to get out if you've got no income. If you need to leave you can't get a house without a job.
Depending on your money and assets you wouldn't necessarily walk away with much from a divorce.
As others have said you're also in a dodgier position for getting a job as you have a career gap. A lot of employers want recent employment references and a lot of uni courses want recent study. It's hard to get your foot back in the door once you've been out of it a while.

Hows your pension? NI contributions? Even if your DH earns enough to have to pay back CB, claim it, to get your stamp paid.

Well, it adds protection, but it's certainly not perfect.

What happens if your husband dies, or leaves you, or becomes unwell and can no longer work? Anyone who has been out of the workplace for a long time is going to struggle with having a huge career gap on their CV, whether that's due to childcare responsibilities or not.

What about paying into your pension, for example? Or, if you're not claiming child benefit, getting your NI contributions registered so you're eligible for enhanced state pension?

If you're career orientated then there is a risk to drop in earnings. But you probably wouldn't be a sahm for any length of time if you were. If you had a minimum wage job pre kids, you can still get one post divorce. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone on mn is a high flying executive on a six figure salary.

YABU. The risk is lower, not less. There is access to the full range of bereavement benefits, which unmarried couples still don't have, the possibility of a greater than 50% share of any assets in the event of divorce and, if relevant, more protection from IHT. However it's easily possible for those things not to be enough in themselves.

The way to look at it is that, unless the SAHP has significant assets in their own name, they are likely to be better off married than they would be doing the same thing unmarried. Superior protection is not the same as full protection.

Marriage doesn’t mean that your husband has a responsibility to house and keep you for the rest of your life, or even until the children grow up, if it all goes wrong. Giving up an income (as well as job progression, pension etc) is always riskier for the person doing it than their partner or spouse.

Looking at people I know (and my own circumstances), it’s clear that having continued to build a career (rather than being married) is the more important factor in terms of recovering financially and logistically from a relationship breakdown.

I can think if one case (within my family) where the woman mistakenly believed that being married was her ticket to a life paid for by her ex. She started cheating on him (to find her next relationship - sadly, she’s not very nice and was quite cynical about it all right from the start) within weeks of the wedding. And then she was disappointed to discover that in short marriages (especially when a woman is young) spousal maintenance is very unusual. She did get more of the assets, but it was a long way from the being bought a house and receiving both generous spousal and child maintenance that she’d imagined she was going to get. She’s now very angry that the universal credit system is trying to get her back into work.

Her ex was left with very few assets as far as I know but he has a good job (and career progression opportunities). That makes it a lot easier, in practical ways, to move on with your life. Admittedly he is worse off for having been married, but he’s in a much better position than my cousin.

Of course it’s a risk. It’s whether it’s an acceptable risk to you.

Unexpected things happen all the time. People split up, they get ill or die. There are steps you can take to mitigate the risk (health insurance, savings etc), but there will always be an element of risk.

At least nowadays women have more opportunities and a greater earning potential. Childcare options are easier too. We have more of a choice now, but it’s still a difficult choice.

I wasn't married so I left with nothing. Two kids and a rucksack and debts in fact.

HOWEVER, as soon as the children were old enough to work (I could only command enough money to make working a sensible venture when childcare wasn't an issue) I had become devalued in the workplace. I was a mum returner (one recruitment agent called me).

I had more experience than a 22 year old but I wasn't valued as an employee with no experience in the same way that a 22 year old would be because I wasn't YOUNG.

I realised that a lot of the jobs I'd been offered when I was younger weren't offered to me because of the little bits of experience I'd had along the way, but because I was YOUNG.

This is not so relevant for women who have a recognised profession. But that's not the majority. (Maybe on mumsnet?! but not in the real world).

I have a job now and it is secure and I"m grateful for it. But I basically only started contributing back in a pension of my OWN at 47. I had been job hunting for something suitable that would work around my kids for a good 3 years before that really. Few hits and misses before I found a good employer.

I think it's a risk to be a SAHM even if you're married.

Unless you're married to a millionaire and even then, those guys often equate money with power and get a good lawyer to shaft you and then you have to relocate, start again, co-parent without maintenance and you're looking for a job that works around having the children half of the time.

Very naive to assume that there is no risk if you're married.

If you want to be a SAHP, then fair enough, but at least make that decision with your eyes wide open.

And it's not just money and it's not just pension.

I'm so glad actually (NOW) that my identity has been formed as a single woman from 35-50 because I would hate now to be fearing a marriage breakdown at 50 something. Even if I was fairly certain it wasn't going to happen because I trusted my ''dee ache''

If you work and have your own money and your own life outside of the home and your H is less likely to see himself as doing you a favour. A lot of husbands get to 50 ish and the kids are independent and I think some of them think why am I supporting this woman to stay at home all day. NOT ALL of them obviously, but the ones who see money as status and money as power

What a depressing thread!

I was a married SAHM for a period after years of being the main breadwinner.

Ex-H decided he wanted to sow his oats so we divorced.

IT had moved on in the ten years that I was out of work and now I am on not much more than minimum wage and over 50, juggling two part time jobs around a disabled child.

If you can work then it is always worth doing so.

@Venicelover

What a depressing thread!

An important one, though.