Stay at home parent looking forward to retirement

[Equalitystreets]

One partner is and has always been the sole breadwinner.

Other is a stay at home parent who as the children have gotten older has gradually had more free time during the day.

They always share the household chores equally.

When the children go to University, the stay at home parent has said they will be retiring and ‘they can’t wait’.

The partner with the job has at least another 15 years of work to do (and all their retirement funding will come from this partner’s investments, or investments set up in the stay at home parent’s name that were set up and funded by the working partner).

Is the stay at home partner being reasonable to declare their job is completed when the children are 18, even if the other partner has another 15 years of work to do?

If the SAHP wants to refer to their life post DCs leaving as "retirement", so what?

I'm sorry, I fail to see the issue here.

OP has said they always share the household chores equally - my dh would probably say this too! But he would be wrong.

There's nothing wrong with working

But don't have someone raise your kids and then decide you're done financially supporting them once the kids turn 18 - the sahp isn't a nanny, they're the ones who've done the sleepless nights and sickness bugs - they deserve to say they've retired, even though parenting doesn't stop once they go to uni

Agree - i read that as did a bit here and there when asked

Unfair? Is that a joke? They've had an easy ride and now it's time to do what most adults do and get a job.

Agreeing to have a SAHP doesn't mean agreeing to it forever. I'd be ending the marriage if they continued to refuse to get a job after all of these years.

There’s loads of things wrong with this, IMO.

Firstly, the “job” of being a parent is never done. You can’t complete parenting.

I’m not sure how someone retires from being at home all day.

I would never be in a SAHP situation; don’t agree with them. But even if I was, there’s no way I’d be splitting household tasks 50/50 with someone who doesn’t work. If you’re at home all day while I’m at work, I’m not doing 50% when I get in.

Personally I think that whichever one is the SAHP should go back to work if their “job” of parenting is done, or the home load is lighter.

An easy ride??? Being a sahp isn't easy 😄

I'd never consider marrying someone who thought so little of me that I should be stripped of all my support because the kids have grown up - the poor sahp deserves better than a partner like this

I dunno why working parents always get so upset at those who stay home

Totally disagree.

If we’re saying that running the home and parenting is a full time equivalent job (if it is, I’d love to know who’s doing my ironing), when that work is “done” then why wouldn’t you go back to work.

If I resign from my job, I won’t still get paid for it.

If you’ve had a SAHP life, and your kids have grown up and moved out; you’re not a SAHP, you’re just a stay at home.

The job the other person has has a lot to do with how "easy" the ride the Sahp had (also the nature and number of their children).

Someone working 9-5 and home every evening and weekend, will put much less of a burden on their partner than someone doing evening work meetings or working away from home for extended periods or just being too important to be around for the kids. We don't know what category the Op falls into! It is very helpful for a wage earner to have a partner at home and never have to take time off for sick kids or appointments.

Also lots of retired people do then pick up part time jobs, can't assume she won't do that. After almost 20 years at home she may also be wondering what the hell she could do work wise, and have anxiety about that.

I think it is pretty easy when your children are at school for 6+ hours a day, tbh.

I bet that's an understatement. As the working partner, I would be pissed off and angry. Fine when the children are younger, but as they get older the fair/right thing to do would be to shoulder the burden of the family, either by doing all of the household chores or by working part-time and sharing financial responsibility. SAHP sounds lazy and entitled. Working partner sounds like a mug.

Agreeing that your parent can stay at home to mind your kids is not the same thing as agreeing that you will always take care of the financial side of things.

I’m “turfed into work” everyday and I have young kids that’s life.

We also don't know how old she is - could be early 60s, could be 40.

While YANBU in principle, you do need to be aware of how difficult it might be for them to get a job after 15 plus? years out of work (assuming they have been a SAHP from day 1 and the kid/s are almost university age).

I know a couple of women who got jobs in local hospitality (think pub restaurant/golf club type of thing) after being SAHP for that sort of timeframe. I imagine they got the jobs through personal contacts rather than going through any sort of recruitment process.

Being a SAHP to young children is very different but this isn't the case here and hasn't been in a long time.

It's absolutely an easy ride when we aren't talking about young children minus some exceptions which I doubt apply here.

At this point, they aren't even a SAHP. They are just unemployed.

I'd never consider marrying someone who thought SAHP = never working again even with almost adult children, it's taking the absolute piss.

Don’t know if it is a he or a she.

I would be looking at what both parties value and want.

For example, does the working person love their job, or would love to retire now too? If the latter, could you downsize or take steps to enable this?

Could both parties work part time to enable more equality?

Does the non working person care about a rich retirement? Maybe they think you collectively have enough already (or isn't aware that there's a huge shortfall?)

In general though, I think if you are similar ages and healths, you should both be working for similar lengths of time.

A ‘stay at home’ who may well be a full time carer for either their own parents or their in-laws or both for all we know…

You make it sound as though going out to work is some sort of cruel and unusual punishment. The vast majority of adults work unless they are actively parenting small children or have an illness or disability which prevents them from working.

At the very least, she should offer to take on 100% of the household chores. She does sound pretty lazy.

To a degree, I completely understand this. I’m not going to get to retire due to divorce. At all in any capacity.
But that was the deal that was made when I agreed to stay at home and do absolutely everything for the children every night waking every 3 am breastfeed every school run.
I think it’s a fair swap for being on duty for 24 seven for in my case 11 years
That you would get to 50 and not be expected to go out and work for some minimum wage job just for the sake of it.

Having been a not stay at home who made that work, it’s still a choice.

Because it’s a choice, both parties in that relationship have to agree to it.

But that doesn’t have to necessarily be the case for it to be justified.
They could just be enjoying their life that’s allowed as well you know.

You don't say anything about your ages OP. If your partner is 40, then some kind of working life post-DC sounds desirable (for them, as much as for you). But if they are 55 or something like that, what are you actually expecting here - realistically?

I think you need to have a frank conversation now, that it’s time to take employment, part time 20 hours a week and do the lions share of the chores so you are both “full time” unless there’s mitigating factors like disability, caring responsibilities etc. I’m in this situation and work 20 hours

Enjoying their life whilst their partner works to fund them?

I’m sure they’d like to enjoy their life too!