Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Divorce/separation

Here you'll find divorce help and support from other Mners. For legal advice, you may find Advice Now guides useful.

Original poster

Are stay at home mums “unemployed”

240 replies

Protectmydaughter · 21/05/2025 18:04

I only ask as my daughter is getting divorced and her husband’s lawyer has referred to her as unemployed rather than acknowledge her homemaking role; this feels so belittling. Are we being over sensitive? What do others think?

OP posts:
CorneliaCupp · 21/05/2025 18:04

I think officially they're 'economically inactive'.

MellowPinkDeer · 21/05/2025 18:05

she Is unemployed , she does not have a job. ( I love how this thread is going to go!! So many like this lately!)

SummerySunshine8 · 21/05/2025 18:06

From a legal standpoint yes. You don't have a job. You're not earning an income or contributing financially to the household.

"Homemaking role" is nothing, many parents, including myself do that alongside a full time job.

Needmorelego · 21/05/2025 18:07

When I have filled out any official government forms I have always been told you shouldn't put "unemployed" unless you are actually job seeking/claiming unemployment benefits.

Amethystanddiamonds · 21/05/2025 18:07

If you are not in paid employment, then yes you are 'unemployed'.

CorneliaCupp · 21/05/2025 18:08

According to Google (the font of all knowledge!:

No, stay-at-home moms are not considered unemployed in the traditional sense. The term "unemployed" typically refers to individuals actively seeking paid employment. Stay-at-home mothers are usually considered "economically inactive" or not participating in the labour force.

wordywitch · 21/05/2025 18:08

Technically it’s correct though still a little arsehole’ish. Perhaps her lawyer could refer to him as a part time father?

Unexpectedlysinglemum · 21/05/2025 18:09

Don't bite

Needmorelego · 21/05/2025 18:10

MellowPinkDeer · 21/05/2025 18:05

she Is unemployed , she does not have a job. ( I love how this thread is going to go!! So many like this lately!)

There's no legal requirement to have a job though.
Someone could be a millionaire so they choose not to work.
They wouldn't be classed as "unemployed" in something like the census.

SkeletonBatsflyatnight · 21/05/2025 18:10

I think technically to be unemployed one should be actively looking for employment. Or at least that's definition the DWP used to use when I worked for them.

However as someone who doesn't have a proper job and isn't currently looking for one...I think your dd probably has bigger issues right now than getting upset about her soon to be ex husband's choice of words.

BobbyBiscuits · 21/05/2025 18:11

Unemployed to me means they are seeking work and capable of it, but are not currently working.
If they're disabled, or choosing to be a SAHP and are funded by their partner and or benefits and not seeking work then it's a bit different.
I guess I'd just say SAHP or medically retired (if person was disabled etc)

Octavia64 · 21/05/2025 18:12

From an economic statistics point of view she would not be considered unemployed unless she is looking for a job.

the government count unemployed people by looking at whether they are claiming job seekers allowance. Other organisations count more widely as not all those looking for a job claim job seekers allowance.

if she is not looking for a job then from the economists point of view she is not unemployed.

SudsySaturday · 21/05/2025 18:13

I'd imagine in the context of a divorce, 'unemployed' is probably relevant to the point they're trying to make.

TreesWelliesKnees · 21/05/2025 18:14

"Homemaking role" is nothing, many parents, including myself do that alongside a full time job.

@SummerySunshine8 It's nothing??? Is this where we've got to, that we would diminish another woman's valid life choices in this way? Nothing?

'Economically inactive' would be the correct term, OP. I'm guessing the lawyer is good at using undermining language to serve his client's outcome.

Needmorelego · 21/05/2025 18:14

Amethystanddiamonds · 21/05/2025 18:07

If you are not in paid employment, then yes you are 'unemployed'.

On one form I filled in (I forget what it was for) I ticked the box that said something like "not working due to family responsibilities".
I don't work (in paid employment 😁) but
I am not "unemployed" so I didn't tick that box.

MellowPinkDeer · 21/05/2025 18:14

Octavia64 · 21/05/2025 18:12

From an economic statistics point of view she would not be considered unemployed unless she is looking for a job.

the government count unemployed people by looking at whether they are claiming job seekers allowance. Other organisations count more widely as not all those looking for a job claim job seekers allowance.

if she is not looking for a job then from the economists point of view she is not unemployed.

I think in this instance the lawyer is just stating she does not have a job. As a PP said, this is kind of the least of the worries of the person in question at this time!

dontcomeatme · 21/05/2025 18:15

Most forms have added the term homemaker to the list and I always pick that one 🤷🏻‍♀️

AndImBrit · 21/05/2025 18:17

Needmorelego · 21/05/2025 18:10

There's no legal requirement to have a job though.
Someone could be a millionaire so they choose not to work.
They wouldn't be classed as "unemployed" in something like the census.

Show quote history

Being unemployed isn’t illegal. But if you’re not employed, then you’re unemployed… it might be by choice, and you might think it’s an offensive work but it’s still the case.

I don’t have children, I’m therefore childless. I might want to badge at child free, or without kids - but it doesn’t change the fact the at I can reasonably be described as childless.

RaininSummer · 21/05/2025 18:18

Unemployed assuming she needs to work and or is looking for paid work. If children aren't babies then should be working if can and needs to for income

OnlyMabelInTheBuilding · 21/05/2025 18:20

The divorce adds an extra angle though, doesn’t it? They are going to describe her as ‘unemployed’ to show she isn’t contributing financially, that it’s a choice for her to not work. If the DC are over 8, the lawyer will be gunning for her to get a job to support herself and the DC, and reduce the amount of support the ex has to provide.

SocksShmocks · 21/05/2025 18:21

She’s not ‘unemployed’ because she’s not looking for work.

But if her children are at school of old enough for nursery then she could be looking for work and realistically if she’s getting divorced she might need to.

Being a full time homemaker is a choice that relies on financial support from somewhere - a partner, ex partner, the state, or independent wealth. If her ex was supporting her to stay home and doesn’t want to any more then I imagine that’s the point his lawyer is driving at - he wants her to be looking for work.

Needmorelego · 21/05/2025 18:21

@AndImBrit but if I tick "unemployed" on official government forms it's a lie because I am not actively seeking work or needing to claim any unemployment related benefits.
As someone above said from a government statistic view the amount of people "unemployed" is counted by the amount claiming job seeking related benefits.
It's a different figure to those counted as "not working".
(I don't think it's an offensive word - where did you get that idea from?)

Aparecium · 21/05/2025 18:25

SummerySunshine8 · 21/05/2025 18:06

From a legal standpoint yes. You don't have a job. You're not earning an income or contributing financially to the household.

"Homemaking role" is nothing, many parents, including myself do that alongside a full time job.

Edited

When dh and I were discussing the options financially available to us, we decided that my staying at home did contribute financially to the household as it made a massive savings on childcare costs. Childcare for two preschoolers in Lindon would have eaten up more than I brought in after tax.

Octavia64 · 21/05/2025 18:27

economists have various classifications of people who are not in paid employment.

strictly by the rules of English anyone who is not in paid employment is “unemployed” but in practice people do make distinctions. Nobody (or very few people) would describe a 5 year old as unemployed although it is strictly speaking true.

people who are not in paid employment are generally split into:

unemployed (of working age and looking for work)
children (not permitted to be in full time paid employment)
retired (medical, early, or otherwise)
etc.

economically inactive is generally used to cover people who are of working age but do not work in paid employment.

AndImBrit · 21/05/2025 18:28

Needmorelego · 21/05/2025 18:21

@AndImBrit but if I tick "unemployed" on official government forms it's a lie because I am not actively seeking work or needing to claim any unemployment related benefits.
As someone above said from a government statistic view the amount of people "unemployed" is counted by the amount claiming job seeking related benefits.
It's a different figure to those counted as "not working".
(I don't think it's an offensive word - where did you get that idea from?)

Edited

It’s not a lie, unless the form specifically defines what is meant by unemployed is seeking work. It’s a binary choice, a person is employed or not employed (aka unemployed). You might also be other things, but you are unemployed.

And if there were no negative connotations the OP wouldn’t have made the point that it sounded dismissive.