To not work full time?

[Lazym]

I have two children 16 and 12. Since my oldest turned 7 months I have worked part time. I cleaned in the evening for 8 years and for last 7 1/2 years I've worked in a supermarket 4 mornings a week, 4 - 8. Obviously when kids were younger this worked out well as I was back home for the school run and partner went to work. My youngest started secondary in September, so now childcare costs aren't an issue I've had comments from partner about finding a full time job. My point is I enjoy my job and am good at it so why should I leave this job to potentially start a job I could hate? The job I have doesn't have full time hours. I contribute to the household financially, pay for two weeks of food shopping every month and pretty much pay for all of the kids needs/clothes. One example, just spent £200 on my lad for his prom, partner paid nothing. So I work and do the usual household chores cook, clean, washing etc. Partner is very money obsessed, but I feel I pay my way too. From when they were very young he's always swanned off and done his own thing, leaving me to it. Another issue with working full time is my lad will be starting college in sept and he'll need a lift to the train station which is 6 miles away and collecting, so how am I supposed to do that? Just needed an opinion. Can never reason with partner as he's never wrong.

Because someone has to look after the children while the parent/s work and some people want that to be a parent rather than a child minder/ nanny/ etc.

And that’s all fine but they aren’t married so none of that applies in law! Also plenty of single parents/two full time working households manage without this “facilitator”.

@GrinAndVomit how was I supposed to do that as a single parent?

OP is not a single parent.

Why couldn't they just have got childcare? That's what I had to do.

I mean I'd love the idea of a stay at home partner who facilitated my career but it's not realistic for many households.

@GrinAndVomit

You said

Because someone has to look after the children while the parent/s work and some people want that to be a parent rather than a child minder/ nanny/ etc.

And the op's partner doesn't agree with her working part time. And her kids don't need a nanny or childminder

But they have done for the last 16 years, which is what she has done and how she has contributed

But they would need to pay for childcare, and take the financial hit of that, which can be considerable. OPs DP didn't need to pay childcare, so she's saved him thousands and thousands over the years. A full time nursery place has been £1k+ a month for more than a decade, even just his 50% of that, for two kids, plus before and after school care, is an awful lot of money. And I know this doesn't help the OP, but it may help others, I've repeated that numerous times.

The law won't calculate it like that for the op.

Yeah it might help others. IMO there are very few families where childcare is such a need that a woman can’t work. My Mum and Dad worked separate shifts. She worked 6-2, he worked 3-11, meant someone was always there. Plenty of people do similar, I’ve got lots of friends who juggle day shift/back shift/nightshift to meet childcare needs.

The massive 1K+/month childcare cost is awful and the Government urgently needs to work on that to encourage working families. However, it disappears age 3, when you only pay wraparound care if necessary. Nursery is 30 hours paid from 3. So even using that as an excuse not to work, it vanishes at 3, not 12/16.

I won’t deny I feel very strongly about women working and modelling for their children equality in relationships, and I acknowledge it’s probably because that’s what I grew up seeing. Those who were raised by a SAHP or are a SAHP might view it differently. I believe that work ethic is taught by example and if we want our children to be hard workers then we must be too. Also, plenty of people have commented on what happens if he leaves her. What if she wants to leave him? In her current circumstances she is trapped. I feel that working full time and owning an interest in property in her own right might have been a better move.

It depends on how much she could have earned in that time and whether it would have exceeded nursery costs.

At any rate, dickhead that he is for not giving her security and not appreciating her, he covers more costs than she does. So from a purely day to day costs perspective, she's probably done better...although of course she has no security. But if you're just going to look at who saved who the most....

That "bill him" thing doesn't work. If he billed her for half the costs of everything over x years, his bill is almost always going to be higher.

There’s no mechanism to force a dad to pay 50% of childcare bill. There was a very long thread on here last week discussing the rights and wrongs of that.
All Op could have done if he said no I’m not paying for childcare was leave and claim child maintenance, probably hundreds less than any childcare bill.

IMO there are very few families where childcare is such a need that a woman can’t work. My Mum and Dad worked separate shifts. She worked 6-2, he worked 3-11, meant someone was always there. Plenty of people do similar, I’ve got lots of friends who juggle day shift/back shift/nightshift to meet childcare needs.

And to me, personally, this sounds like absolute hell.
But I would never come on a thread and belittle a woman who does this.

I think it's absolute madness you don't even know the salary of your partner of 16 years. If it's under a certain amount and you're working only 16 hours a week you could be entitled to claim UC top up. The fact you know so little about your long term partners finances is a huge red flag, not just for him but for you. Why are you so passive about this?

Utter rubbish. Next time I see a post where the male only works 16 hrs a week I'll count how many comments mention he is facilitating her career.

Childcare exists, children goes to school. No one needs a woman to stay home in order to facilitate some shitty middle management 35k male salary. It is nonsense. Most parents work, it is not necessary to stay at home.
If someone wants to, that is a want and a luxury and every choice we make has consequences. In the case of choosing to barely work the consequences are financial.

This is the problem in a nutshell. She can bill him for 50% of childcare and housework costs. The 50% of the mortgage she hasn’t paid would exceed that alone. Then there’s 50% of Council tax, gas, electric, the other half of the food, clothing, children’s hobbies, any decoration to the home, car and transport costs, family holidays and days out. It all adds up swiftly and he will never come off worse as the full time employed person.

But you’ve no problem belittling those who use nannies and childcare, as you did a few posts ago?

Where have I belittled anyone? I’ve acknowledged some people make that choice. That’s all.

"some people want to be a parent" ... give me a break. Here we go with the utter rubbish that anyone who has used a child minder or nanny somehow isn't a real mother blah blah blah.

Well if OP wanted to barely work then she made her choice. Her children have both been in school for the better part of a decade. She chose not to work during that time and as such she has limited herself financially. All choices.

You might want to re-read your post re. childcare and some people. I’m sure you didn’t mean to be so rude in how that came across.

Also, it was fab having parents who shared work/childcare/housework, far from hell. ☺️ And guess what I’ve done as an adult, probably as a result? Married a man who does 50% of the housework, childcare and out of the home work, which means I’m self sufficient, own 50% of a property and have a pension to facilitate my own retirement. As does he.

You’ve woefully misread or you’re disingenuously misrepresenting what I’ve written there.
Nasty little tactic.

To be fair @GrinAndVomit I found this pretty offensive (especially with the emphasis on some)

Because someone has to look after the children while the parent/s work and some people want that to be a parent rather than a child minder/ nanny/ etc.

As a single parent who worked bloody hard to keep a roof over our heads and my kids fed all by myself AND put myself through university and professional exams I found the sneering undertone that i perceived I wasn't doing the best for my kids offensive.

No misreading whatsoever.

"some people want that to be a parent rather than a child minder/ nanny/ etc."

The suggestion that one choses to either be a parent or use a child minder or nanny is your own words.

some. means a number of. There was no judgement or superiority implied in it at all.
It was to highlight that everyone has different circumstances and makes different choices after repeated posts about how we should all do it your way because you have done it that way.

Imagine how good your kids must feel about you though, knowing you’ve done that ☺️ My husband is working full time and doing part time uni and it’s unbelievably hard. Doing it as a singe parent is something to be immensely proud of!