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?

Working doesn't stop us from being around for our children. We've experienced a hospital stay with a child and one of us was always there but the bills still need to be paid and that doesn't stop just because of life throwing things at you.

Perhaps not, but knowing the mental health crisis teenagers are under at present, I plan to be a SAHP/ work entirely flexibly and at home when mine are teenagers so I can be there for mundane daily interactions and quantity contact, to catch things early and be around without hesitation or pushback from an employer (I work full time at the moment while they’re at primary).

I think we assume teenagers don’t need us as much because we assume that mental health problems and difficulties are part and parcel of adolescence. However, I’ve seen friends sadly regret working full time during those teen years under the same assumption that all would be fine in the end, but the interventions were too late and the damage is done.

It isn’t being a leech if it’s been agreed between both people and everyone has been happy about it so far . If the working partner wasn’t happy then they should have been muting the idea of the other person getting into work as soon as the kids started school or at least secondary school .

Agreeing for your partner to be a SAHP doesn't equal an agreement that you will be the sole earner for the rest of your working lives.

The OP didn’t have the support you listed, he/she did 50% or household chores.

The flip of what you listed is that SAHP can raise & spend time with their kids while not having to worry about the bills, who is paying for mortgage, electricity, food, kids etc.

And expenses don’t magically drop because children go to uni, in the last years of work you need to be focused on building a pension for starters. So it isn’t a case that the OP can just step back without money coming from somewhere else.

The OP’s partner is in a position to work, the Op is working, he doesn’t want to be the only person contributing. She should go back to work IMO. OP already does 50% of household so there is no need to work that out.

Being a sahp brings a lot of jealousy 🥺 but its not as easy as working people make it seem.

Not jealous at all. I get irritated by the sanctimonious and superior attitudes of some , as if they're better mothers than those who work, and the huge over playing of what the role involves.

It would depend on how unwell the partner is. The other parent could use childcare just as other working parents do.

That's a risk that SAHP's take. It only works when both people agree to it, if the provider no longer wants to provide then they can't be forced to, especially after many years of doing it. Maybe cutting back isn't possible either if they still have large outgoings.

Do you have any idea what teens are like @SouthLondonMum22? Did you say, in another thread, you have twins and another one? It's easy now, with them in childcare all day.

My relative who I saw yesterday can't work as her DD is out of school, self-harming and bulimic. She needs constant monitoring. It was all fine until she hit 12. This is a totally normal family, no obvious reason why the DD should be like this. Eating disorders in teens aren't even particularly rare.

You can't be too complacent about anything with teens. You have to be one step ahead with everything, especially these days with social media. It's bad enough now, god knows where we'll be in another 10 years.

What I'm saying is - life happens. Kids are unpredictable. You can't just put them in a box and assume anything. At some point, the convenience of nursery won't be there. Your babies will become more complex and their needs more emotionally taxing. There is only so much a school can do. If your child needs you, they need you.

The sahp shouldn't have their life upended because their partner feels upset about taking care of the person who took care of him and his family for all of those years

And what about OP’s financial provision which took care of the SAHP all those years? What does that count for? Does he now also get brownie points? The family are in debt still, the kids at university will need to be provided for. Why is this only his responsibility?

I hate the language “provider”, why should one person be classed as a “provider” and that’s it. That’s their classification for the rest of their lives. It doesn’t take into account their needs and their mental health.

The OP is not a “provider” he/she is a person!

You cannot retire from parenting! lol!
however this situation depends on how needy your adult children are. Do they need support? Emotionally perhaps. It is quite difficult to work with grown up children that still need support.
Yanbu to expect your dp to make a financial contribution or do all the home life stuff. That is still a valuable contribution.
i actually can see why sahp feel such a sense of relief and job done at the end … its relentless, been there done that, im 64 now and was sahp. I took a year off to learn something I loved and from then got a job. Maybe your dp could agree to a sabbatical from financial contribution for a limited time then has to work. It’s not a partnership otherwise, she’s your dependent! That is a piss take I’m my view unless you’re happy with the set up of course

“upset about taking care of the person who took care of him and his family for all of those years”

I think you’ll find they BOTH took care of each other, and the children. One financially, the other practically/emotionally. Absolutely the sahp facilitiated the working parent to go out and earn and their contribution should not be underestimated and undervalued, but the working parent also took care of the family.
Now/when kids have gone to uni the need to be at home and do all that practical work and care is no longer there, so the reason for being at home full time has gone and there’s no excuse not to try and get back into the world of work.

This was my parents. But as we went off to uni, mum never saw it as retirement. She carried on running the house for her and dad, cooking, shopping etc and dad carried on working. She did go back to her career a couple of days a week for a while too. It suited them and she was v efficient at running the house at thst meant he worked in a way that suited him. When he retired they spent lots more time doing things together which they loved. They never split the household stuff - but they’re a diff generation. She did all of that and still does even though he’s no longer here! (She’s 90!!)

I think it’s whatever suits you both. But given the state of the first time housing market, I think the Sahp may well have a full nest again in 3 years time!!

I agree. It’s like some SAHP don’t realise that working parents do a lot if not all of what they do AND go out to work too. SAHP’s have it generally a lot easier (serious disabilities/caring responsibilities aside - I understand that those SAHPs just about get through the day most of the time)….i know I’ve been one when my kids were little.

So why are you insisting that this is some poor, over worked woman in all your posts then? It could be a poor, over worked man. You should not assume simply because it suits your personal narrative.
Either way, they should have started supporting their partner properly years ago, including being in paid employment if he/she was no longer happy to support them fully financially.

Mine and my partner’s money is our money, we both earn it. I couldn’t imagine being comfortable having “our” money that is actually his money.

OP - I think you need to sit your partner down to discuss. This really doesn’t seem a fair set up if you aren’t happy with it.

The vast majority of teens aren't out of school, self harming and with an eating disorder. As I said, there are exceptions.

Life does happen, I agree. If someone had to step away from work it would be DH because despite life happening, bills will also continue to happen and I'm the higher earner.

Has there been any judgement against working mums in this thread?

You might not always be the higher earner. Again, life happens.

I suppose it depends on how much you both value the SAHP work to be/have been?

Does the working partner want the SAHP to continue working by getting a job outside of the home? I think even a part time job wouldn't be unreasonable if you're both happy for the SAHP to do the majority of the domestics.

Completely taken advantage of? So homeless, starving, no holidays or clothes. Just slave labour?

It's the working parent who has been taken advantage of. SAHPs don't really work all that much (under usual circumstances) once children go to school.

I work LTFT. My days off with the children are easier and much more fun than my working days. There is simply no comparison.

I know exactly what teens are like.

the idea that I wouldn’t work just “in case” one had a MH crisis, or an elderly relative needed care- I have no words.

if my teens had such severe needs then there are options. Parental leave. Employers are not so heartless, a colleague recently had 6 months off while her child was ill. No problem.

As a working parent I don’t want someone to take over at home so I am “free” of those responsibilitie. My house, my kids, I want to see them and help raise them.

if my child was sick I took a day off. No big deal. If I had a particularly important meeting dh took the day off, No big deal.

as to worrying if one of us died, we’d both done enough parenting to know the other one would be fine and knew what the kids needed and how to run the home, and earn money. Not to mention both of us had death in service benefits so would have had money to shore us up a few years- a sahp dies the wohp gets no financial compensation.

we have a better, balanced lifestyle with both of us sharing the parenting and financial responsibilities. Like I said when an elderly relative needed care, it was dh that stepped back from work as he was in a better position to do so.

we have had a lot more flexibility and choice with both of us working. We can both retire before 60 and get some proper living done.

putting your life on hold in case you might be needed is ridiculous. Especially when kids are at uni.

Reading this post just makes me despair for humanity.

What would you advise your daughter?

Don’t give up after children, Work go and be a corporate slave. Work PAYE spend 50% of every penny that you earn propping up the system that supports those who will never do a days work in their life.
At least 20% of your income will be spent paying somebody less educated, less capable less caring than yourself to supervise your children during most waking hours.
Leaving you 30% to exist on, feeding the machine that is the rental Landlord cycle.

Any if by some miracle you meet somebody who’s Outlook is the same as yours and you won’t buy into the con. It’s only for so long before they will start to resent you for not being the capitalist wage slave that they’ve been forced be. And if you don’t willingly join in, you’ll be divorced and forced to.
It’s an absolute shit show. I hope mine reject the bloody lot and go and live in a tent.

The tone is there- all the guff about what SAHMs do as if only they could do and households would fall apart without them.

The SAHM in this thread sounds like a right grifter. There OP works full time and shared the household duties 50/ 50. That wasn't fair from the outset.

So seen the partner who is working finally retires will they then also be expected to do 50% of all the household chores etc? I'd say the person who retired 15 years earlier should continue in their role whereas the one who retired significantly later finally gets to do as they please.