Deciding to become a stay at home mum

[irishamy89]

Hi All.
I'm pregnant with my first baby and my DP and I are both in agreement that I will be a SAHM.
Were lucky to be in a position where we will still be financially fine however I'm sure it will still feel like a big change for me!
Anyone else made this decision and how are you feeling about it?
We live a short commute from central London and are looking for a bigger flat or house.
I have told DP that I definitely don't want to move somewhere that would make travel in to central London difficult.
I would feel too isolated!!

Fakenamefornow - Hi! Sounds like you really enjoyed it!
That's great that you had no mortgage, we do but it isn't too bad.
We are thankfully in a good financial position and individually I am too which is nice.
We will definitely get married however not until after the baby is born as we have too much going on to plan a lovely wedding too!

I did pay a huge financial price and will continue to pay for the rest of my life, but I think those years were worth it and I would absolutely make the same choice again. I do wonder if I have disadvantaged my children, in that we won't have the money to pay for their university fees or give them a big deposits for a flat. I know it's a controversial thing to say but I think it the early years it is best to have one carer so maybe best for them at the start of childhood not good at the end years?

OP, I am SO JEALOUS. I'd love to be a SAHM, but my other half is absolutely not willing to do it. The stress of being solely responsible for us all is too much for him, and we can't realistically afford it right now.

All the advice here about getting married for things like inheriting half a house and stuff has actually been a real eye opener for me... Thanks everyone!

Just one thing, the advice to get married if you are a SAHM (from a financial point of view) is generally right. It sounds though as if you have substantial wealth that is generating a reasonable income given your comments about your personal financial position. If that is right (a significant property and/or investment portfolio?) and your partner does not enjoy the same degree of wealth then the advice to get married to protect yourself might not be right for you (from a financial position, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't get married if you want to) or you may need to protect yourself. It would be a good idea to get legal advice to check your personal position if that is the case.

FWIW I was a (married!) SAHM for several years and very part time (2 days a week) for the rest of the time before my youngest started school this year. I really enjoyed it and it worked really well for all of us. I have actually got back into my old career at a higher level than before children and with flexibility to do school pick ups etc BUT to do this I did the odd conference/gave training days/wrote for professional publications whilst a SAHM to keep myself current and CV ticking. The two day a week job made me vitally nothing after child care but kept my confidence and contacts up. I knew that I personally would find it very hard to be a SAHM once the children were at school so this was important to me, going back has also meant that we can save for future advantages for them which are also important. It sounds as if the courses you have planned would be great for keeping the CV and confidence going.

I'm sorry that you've felt the thread to be negative I don't think people mean to be, they are just telling you about the decisions that they or others have made and how they feel about if a few years on with some experience of that decision. The truth is that it seems that the majority of people who have a child without being married will split up during that child's childhood recent thread . I'm not suggesting that you personally will find yourself in that position but a lot of people on here will have been or will have had friends or family who have been and it often doesn't go well for the SAHM if they don't have the substantial assets that you seem to have. The double whammy of time out of work and the cost of childcare can make it really difficult to retrain or get back into a decent job so a small amount of savings that seemed like security can disappear quite quickly. There are always lots of lurkers on these threads so it is good to have this message emphasised.

Sorry for the long thread and good luck with the rest of your pregnancy and new life, it sounds as if you have thought about if carefully and are in a really good position.

Just one thing, the advice to get married if you are a SAHM (from a financial point of view) is generally right. It sounds though as if you have substantial wealth that is generating a reasonable income given your comments about your personal financial position. If that is right (a significant property and/or investment portfolio?) and your partner does not enjoy the same degree of wealth then the advice to get married to protect yourself might not be right for you (from a financial position, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't get married if you want to) or you may need to protect yourself. It would be a good idea to get legal advice to check your personal position if that is the case.

Yes, and yes again.

Wow, I'm trying to imagine that last piece of advice being given to a man who was richer than his partner, and there not being uproar.

A common double standard MatildaV! I had many arguments with my
Dad about this when I got married. I was asset rich when I married my DH and my dad was very concerned about my DH benefiting from my asset wealth.
My DH on the other hand was in a good position cash wish but had no bricks and mortar investments and my Dad felt it was perfectly ok for me to share in DH's cash wealth and any mention of my DH protecting his position was seen as a lack of commitment to me!

Really? A man who was planning to be a SAHD and would therefore need his capital to provide security for the future as he was giving up income, pension contributions and likely to cause significant damage to his earning capacity? I would give exactly the same advice (get legal advice before assuming there is a good financial reason to marry) to anyone making such a decision. Why do you think there is a gendered difference Matilda?

I haven't read all of the replies - there were too many of them!

However I have three children 13, 6, and 2, and I have been a SAHM for 13yrs. From a legal perspective you have more protection if you are married but you probably know that already. As a SAHM you will have days where it is only you and this tiny helpless baby that is completely dependant on you all day. There will be days where you may not speak to a single adult from the moment your partner leaves the house in the morning until he returns at night.

That being said, I wouldn't change it for the world. I haven't missed a single thing when my children have been little, I've been there when they came out of school in tears, or went into school in tears! I've never had to worry about my children being off school sick.

But, being a mum is all I ever wanted to be. Work was something I did while I waited for children to come along.

You and your partner will know what is right for you and your baby, trust your instincts, just remember, whether you stay at home or go back to work, a happy mother makes a happy baby.

Domino51 - I know what you mean by the number of replies!!
What a lovely story, it sounds like you've really enjoyed it.
Growing up my parents always worked full time so I was always in childcare, I didn't really mind it but I'm pleased that my DP grew up with a SAHM and is very open to both options.

Tess, I do think there would have been a different, and greater, response to your advice if it had been offered to a man, whether it was a man continuing to work or a man who was planning to become a SAHD. Your post took me back because most people have been advising marriage because it would give the OP equal rights to property, etc, but your's was more along the lines of "only marry him if he's richer than you". A man would be slaughtered for expressing a similar opinion.

Lovely post Domino.

your's was more along the lines of "only marry him if he's richer than you"

I don't think that's what I said at all Matilda. I said that the advice that you could protect yourself against financial vulnerability by marrying was generally true but it may well be reversed if you have significant assets (as I assume the OP does). So the argument that you should marry for financial reasons may no longer be a good one, it may actually be a bad one. I specifically said "I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't get married if you want to".

whether it was a man continuing to work or a man who was planning to become a SAHD.

I genuinely don't think it is the case that there would be a different response if making this to a SAHD rather than SAHM. Indeed I would be very shocked if it was: why would there be a difference?

The moral distinction isn't male/female it is financial dependent/financial provider. If you are very wealthy and encourage your partner to become financially dependent on you, especially if it is to care for your children, then I would consider it morally reprehensible to manipulate the legal position try to avoid recognising that person's dependency if the relationship breaks down. If, on the other hand, you are wealthy and use that wealth to allow you to stay at home i.e. you are financially dependent on the wealth not the other party, then it would be wise for you and your children to take steps to ensure that wealth was well protected so that you could continue in that caring role if the relationship ended.

For all those reasons I think the important moral distinction is not on the grounds of gender but financial dependency. It is true that there is a gender discrepancy in the way those roles are distributed in society and I wonder whether your reaction was because you implicitly assumed a man would be a financial provider rather than a carer despite the fact that the discussion was entirely about giving up income to care?

Sorry for the hi-jack OP!

I agree with most of what has been said already.

I am a solicitor, if I left my job for a few years then I will have to retrain and my peers will become my superiors and I will be a paralegal and/or a trainee again, but with people half my age.

Also after 8 months I couldn't wait to get back to work.....I had planned to stay home for a few years but after 8 months, I missed the excitement of contract disputes, hanging round the courthouse and the office banter. I couldn't wait to get into my high heels again.

If you have a career that will enable you to jump back in then go for it, spend the time with your kids.

Not all of us are in jobs where we can do that...if you are then u r lucky, jump at the chance, the years when they are young and learning new things is priceless and u will enjoy them.

irishamy89 - I also grew up with a SAHM and so did my husband, but while I was pregnant he definately wanted me to go back to work and I was very anti returning to work. Fortunately for me, we had to move for his work after I became pregnant (actually moving 150miles at 38wks!) so buying a house on two incomes etc was not an option. It hasn't been easy, there have been many posts regarding wealth, well we are not wealthy. We are backs against the wall robbing Peter to pay Paul every month. And yes going back to work would ease our financial worries but that would not balance what me and the children would miss out on.

I forgot to mention, that after our first baby was born, my husband had a complete reversal and was absolutely on board with my being a SAHM. Now he doesn't know how he would do his job if I wasn't at home taking care of our children. We have no pressures about being home in time for the childminder or the nursery or concerns with our teenager being home alone for any length of time. It's not easy, but it works for us, and I think that is the key, what works for you and your family.

Advice is specific to someone taking the career hit of SAHP. That holds for men and women - there's a SAHD caring for 3 boys under 5 in DS's class at school. Not many (anyone?) can drop out of the workplace for an extended time without taking a hit to professional advancement, pension savings, career development opportunities. It's a given. That being so, if the person doing that has assets which could protect them from an impoverished old age should the relationship founder, then they need to consider how to keep those assets secure. Because if a separation happens in a decade, then the finances will be calculated as they stand there, yet in 30 years things career-wise may look very different between the parties precisely because of that career break.

It's not the gender that drives the advice. It's the roles suggested for the respective parties. It isn't always the woman who stays at home.

Tess had already said it, far more eloquently!

Yours is rather more concise sleep!

I became a sahm when my son was born 17 months ago. It's amazing but tough as well. I try and get out and about with him everyday. Its harder when they are tiny as you can end up stuck in the house. I used to just go for a coffee or meet a friend to get out for a few hours. Now we are busy everyday I LOVE being there for him all day everyday. It's not for everyone but I personally wouldn't have it any other way. We are married and financially I don't spend much on myself, we get by easy enough on dh's wages. I didn't decide until after my maternity leave. I Would see how your maternity leave goes and take it from there xx

Thanks Meggy! As luck would have it we have found ourselves in an even better financial situation since my original post.
It's really just a case of deciding after the baby is born whether it is for me.
I feel being a sahm is the right thing for us and luckily DP completely supports me whatever I do.

Foolish if you are not married. Just trawl the relationships boards. Not a week goes by without a thread from someone left with nothing because 'DP' left