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?

You can’t really think that? Do you think the same for men who don’t work! That it’s like some form of meal ticket for life?

@Undecided83

Sorry OP but that's a ridiculously naive view. I was married, gave up my career coz he'd 'take care of us'. He walked out and left me with 3dcs under 2. Gave up work to avoid paying towards mortgage, csa etc. Our house was repossessed, we ended up in council property and £20,000 debt. 12 years on. He's living it up in OW house, which he's paid to extend, fiddling his tax returns etc. Gives me £30 a week. I'm using food banks, kids are wearing 3rd hand uniform, and he's on 3 holidays a year, multiple nights out, and her kids wear designer clothes.

Gosh that really is tough for you. I’m sure your doing a fabulous job of raising your DCs.

what do they say? Don't marry anyone you wouldn't want to be divorced from, marriage isn't a protection if you marry someone awful who is skilled at ignoring lawyers letters and hiding money. Or they could get sick. Not being in the labour market is always a risk.

Apart from the risk, isn’t it a bit cheeky to assume that someone else will fund you when you’re no longer sharing a home and a life with them?

** A wise person once said, be financially independent, even if you never need to be.

This

It’s not just about money. Don’t forget OP if you have not worked for 10+ plus years your out of touch with everything... it will be a lot harder to get employed. The lack of confidence you would have after been at home and all of a sudden having to step back into the working world.... with a possibility of a messy break up.

Life is full of risks. You could needlessly work at a job you hate while your kids are young. That’s a risk too.

@NailsNeedDoing

Apart from the risk, isn’t it a bit cheeky to assume that someone else will fund you when you’re no longer sharing a home and a life with them?

It depends on circumstances. Let’s be honest plus once you have children it’s them that need funding.... so yes to some degree the wife should be “funded” because it’s usually them that ran the family home whilst the husband built himself up.

Women always get the short end (usually) the children to look after and going to work.

@NailsNeedDoing

Apart from the risk, isn’t it a bit cheeky to assume that someone else will fund you when you’re no longer sharing a home and a life with them?

That attitude is fine, provided you also extend it to divorced partners who do anything less than 50% of the childcare and mental load relating to kids post separation.

@RepDom21

It isn’t exactly unusual for separated families to have 50\50 shared cate or close to it nowadays, one person (unless a very high earner) can’t be expected to fully financially support two adults and their children having two separate homes.

Wives only get the short end of the stick when the relationship breaks down or the earning partner is abusive. Otherwise they great deal, they get to be around to spend time with their children and bringing them up exactly as they choose, and they get it all for free. There are risks for the women, and there are different risks for the men when there’s a SAHM in a divorce.

Protection from what? Does marriage mean a husband can't die, get made redundant, fall off the roof, turn into an alcoholic, decide he's a woman after all?

[quote NailsNeedDoing]@RepDom21

It isn’t exactly unusual for separated families to have 50\50 shared cate or close to it nowadays, one person (unless a very high earner) can’t be expected to fully financially support two adults and their children having two separate homes.

Wives only get the short end of the stick when the relationship breaks down or the earning partner is abusive. Otherwise they great deal, they get to be around to spend time with their children and bringing them up exactly as they choose, and they get it all for free. There are risks for the women, and there are different risks for the men when there’s a SAHM in a divorce.[/quote]
I’m sorry but your living in dream world. Your selling divorce as a positive thing.

I have never been married. I am no longer with my child’s father and our child Care is not split 50/50 or anything near it for that matter. I get CMS but it certainly doesn’t make up for the life or salary before I had my DS!! Not that I would change any of it.

Friend of DH's gave up her very interesting, well paid career to be a SAHM simply because her DH needed to move for his career. He turned out to be an addict an alcoholic and was fired for fraud. And when they were going through the divorce, he fought her on every single thing culminating in a big argument between him and DH when friend complained, "She wants the house but I paid for it by taking those jobs in Country X and Country Y". DH, bless him, pointed out that his friend was a dick.

So yes, there's a risk.

For the record, DH has been a SAHP for years and works part time now. So I'm not saying don't do it, but I think you're being naive if you think there's zero risk.

MrsTSwift

What is the risk about working when your kids are young? What exactly are you risking by working?

As for working “needlessly”: who does that? the reasons people work are absolutely clear: money to support their children, financial security, a pension, happiness, stimulation, social life. Those are all pretty high on the list of human priorities, especially the financial ones. How many people do you know who work for shits and giggles?

My experience was that I became a SAHM and during that time I volunteered, looked after my mother in her final illness and studied for a post-grad qual. I used those years to build a CV better than the one I might have had if I had stayed in post, and my kids benefitted. I loved my time at home, but I made it work for me by taking advantage of all the opportunities that arose.

When I returned to work I went back into a new career, part time, term time, at a higher salary and with better prospects. I thne progressed up the ladder. And I am still married!

It's worth doing the child maintenance calculator online- I was shocked how little I would get if me and dh split up

It is so dependant on individual circumstance it's hard to say.

You will obviously not have gainful employment, so would have to use sone of the money in a settlement to support yourself until you find employment.

If there is no money in your marriage, then yes financially it's a risk as you would have to live on benefits, emergency housing (after they come through ) until you get a job.

I’m sorry but your living in dream world. Your selling divorce as a positive thing.

No I’m not. Read it again. I said the SAHM gets a good deal until they divorce, and my point originally was that after divorce, it’s not only a risk financially for a woman because she probably won’t continue to be fully funded, but it would also be cheeky of her to expect it anyway.

I was married and a SAHM. We rented so we didn't have assets to split in the divorce, I ended up on benefits.

Oh I'm a SAHP and it's a risk I chose to take.

I know where all our money and investments are and have access to all of it. Your marriage is already in trouble if this is not the case.

Yes of course it's a risk! But in my opinion it's worth the risk to be able to raise my own kids and watch them grow up and trust that my husband will continue to love me & provide for us. All you can do is assess the risk and make their own decisions.

Nope! Anything can happen in life, unemployment, death & divorce are all highly possible. You are always safer if you can be independent and can walk away, or take over the bills, at the very least you maintain independence and respect.
You also come out better in divorce!

Its a risk but personally one i was willing to take so i could be at home with my dc
Once i got back to work i had to start at bottom and work my way back up but it never bothered me as i wanted to stay home with the kids more
I also managed our money so was never any chance of dh being able to run off and leave me penniless as such

@NailsNeedDoing

I’m sorry but your living in dream world. Your selling divorce as a positive thing.

No I’m not. Read it again. I said the SAHM gets a good deal until they divorce, and my point originally was that after divorce, it’s not only a risk financially for a woman because she probably won’t continue to be fully funded, but it would also be cheeky of her to expect it anyway.

Gosh even the way you write “funded” is rude. I’m not and never have been a SAHM to be honest my child’s father once insisted he had “payed his taxes” for me to take Mat leave.... (which was false) see how people may speak to you when you are in a vulnerable position? I’ve never wanted that ever.

The wife was never “funded” as such the husband and wife obviously agreed for her to be a SAHM. As far as I’m concerned SAHMs are not being “funded”. They have and were entitled to it as they technically have been working raising the kids!!

So when the SAHM decides s to get a job will the dad be doing his fair share of childcare??? Because it doesn’t happen like that in most cases yet your quick to point out that the woman should “fund” herself but it’s not just as simple as that when you have kids is it?

@RepDom21

You seem to be projecting your own stuff quite a bit here. Your personal experiences aren’t something I was making a dig at somehow. Chill.

[quote NailsNeedDoing]@RepDom21

You seem to be projecting your own stuff quite a bit here. Your personal experiences aren’t something I was making a dig at somehow. Chill.[/quote]
Ignorance is bliss.