Don't give up work to be a SAHM unless

[akaemmafrost]

You have a HEFTY private income or can work from home.

I gave up work, usual reasons, wages would barely cover childcare, WE wanted kids to be at home with a parent.

Fast forward. I now have two dc, the father of my dc cheated on me, physically, emotionally and financially abused me.

One of my dc has SN and cannot attend school for the moment.

I've been out of work for 10 years now, I have no profession. In 6 years time our child support will stop as will most of our benefits. I will near fifty having not worked at all for 18 years.

My future is shit. Utterly grey and bleak. All I have to look forward to is a state pension. While my ex earns a fortune, travels the world and has new relationships.

This is reality for me. So think long and hard about giving up work to stay at home because no matter how shit your job is it's preferable to my future don't you think?

And it was all decided for me by a man who decided he hated me and didn't want to be married anymore and a child being diagnosed with significant SN.

It's that simple.

Yes I do realise all of that and haven't suggested anything else. In my own experience, watching friends going through this, in every case the judge has awarded a final settlement taking their status as a sahm into consideration. Nowhere have I argued that this will always and forever be the case. Is lawyering about deliberately misinterpreting what someone has written and being patronising to boot? Just checking. Are plebs like me allowed a say on this, or should we just hand over this thread to the lawyers from now on?

autumn
To quote
tholeon, if you have savings, investments and equity in your property, you'd get a greater share than your dh. You'd stay in family home till kids are 18 and get about 70% of the equity. Not so if you're financially independent.

This is just not correct, all we have done is point that out.

autumn yes you did say that "the sahm will always get a bigger share of the equity/family home".
If you now have understood that this opinion was not correct and this might not actually always happen, then it's ok to admit it and maybe make some respective arrangements to protect your interests.

akaemmafrost

Well I don't read your posts as SAHM-bashing, but they do highlight how vulnerable many women are, and how little value is placed on raising your own children and running a home. Which is pretty absurd really, when you think that a live-in nanny/housekeeper would expect to earn an average of £314 NET pw in London,£250 outside - and special needs experience would increase that considerably.

I think you have posted at a very bleak time in your life, and all I can say is carry on with your OU studies because they will lead you somewhere. You have a wealth of specialised experience in caring for your son which few people acquire, and that is actually a real advantage. Perhaps at some point you will be able to find work in that field?

In the meantime, have you thought of doing childminding/playwork for children with additional needs? There are organisations like this one which specialise.

There's an interesting article here about working from home in a range of different occupations too.

With regard to your particular situation, what is happening in terms of your separation - are you divorced yet? Sorry if you've already said - it's quite a long thread! But I will post some information I have put together for you if you need it. I know you say your H will "give up work and go self-employed" but any financial order would be based on the previous 12 months earnings. Let me know if you want more information.

This is the best place to go to discuss debt issues.

Wishing you well.

Well that's my friend was told by her actual hotshot lawyer, not someone on the web claiming to be. Turned out to be correct too. Usually does when there's a lot of savings, equity and pension involved. The parent with care of kids get priority because the kids are given priority in vast majority of cases. Well, unless you have OJ Simspsons lawyer overseeing your assets I guess. Besides, I'd suggest that most sensible people would do their own legal research if they ever had this situation. And wouldn't take the words of a random poster on Mumsnet as fact whether they claim to be a hotshot lawyer or burlesque dancer.

autumn is broadly correct to say that SAHMs do have their contribution to marital assets treated equally, and usually would get a greater share of the assets to make up for lost earnings and earning potential, pension, and decreased mortgage capacity. It's so that parties can leave the marriage on an equal footing, and the financial settlement is based on need (especially the children's need for housing etc).

However, for that to happen there have to be marital assets to split - property, savings, pensions etc. If that's not the case, the SAHM will get nothing, while the H walks away with his earnings intact apart from child maintenance and possibly spousal maintenance, both of which are dependent on him continuing to work and earn the same level of income.

Parallel universe again. In real life I know not one person who's had a 50/ 50 split where they were sahm and ex had good job, savings, pension, equity etc. Not one. Now you're going to tell me there are loads and its now standard practise to kick mother out of family home and leave her penniless. Whatever.

Yes olgaga, that's what I think too.

Apoc Only just come back to thread.
^I think this goes to the heart of why men are increasingly averse to getting married.

Suppose you want to do this and are funded to do so by a husband. He would like to do this himself, but can't, because he's the major earner.

If you get a divorce, the fact that he funded you to pursue your inclinations^

I was the one adverse to getting married actually - he would have been providing a better monthly income, but I am actually financially secure with savings and a house. He was an alcoholic, amongst other things. I am on my own and he certainly hasn't offered to even see his daughter for 11 months, which I think highlights what a leap 'he would like to do this himself' is.
My point was that being at home with my daughter for the majority of her early years is better, I feel for both of us than me working part time and paying for childcare instead and only bringing an extra £100 pm home for us. In my situation it isn't worth it.

If I hadn't ensured I was financially secure before having DD then I can see your point.

autumn you're making yourself look rather silly, here.

I'm sure more lawyers will come along to tell you so.

What olgaga is saying is correct. This is not what you were saying intially autumn.

I'm glad you finally understand.

I suspect they'll have much better things to do on a Friday night, quite honestly!

Also someone upthread asked about unmarried SAHMs.

Their position is more precarious, in that any court involved in splitting up non-marital assets can use much less discretion than a divorce court. It's braodly a case of who piad what, whereas in divorce law courts can take into account not fiscal contributions.

autumnlights to be clear when I suggested posters be careful what they say on here I was referring specifically to your assertions about financial settlements in a divorce which whilst may be applicable to a couple of friends of yours do not constitute the norm.

chaz has put it well and I dont understand your reluctance to stand corrected

I completely agree - dont give up work - im lucky i went back to work 2 years ago and when i left controlling piss head h i was able to take out a mortgage on my own and support my family
if i hadnt gone back to work then i would have been completely reliant on him or on the state and i would be struggling

Ignore the OP at your peril - almost 40% of marriages end in divorce before the 10th anniversary.

getting one of the reasons I am scrupulous about the law being incorrectly stated here on MN is that it can be so damaging.

Of course once one is getting a divorce one should find a solicitor, but decisions are taken by women way before that point. How many women do we really think seek legal advice before marrying, or having DC or becoming a SAHM?

Seeking legal advice in retrospect is like bolting the proverbial stable door.

Having the correct knowledge at ones disposal can only ever empower.

I just wanted to post something with hope in it. My dad ran off leaving my mum to raise 3 of us, one of whom has severe mental health issues. Stuck in negative equity with no benefits, in the late 80's recession. So mum, who left school at 15, couldn't work without loosing all benefits, house etc. So she went to college, access course in her mid 40's. She went on to do a degree. The house finally came out of negative equity, she sold it and started again.

Fast forward 15 years, she has her own little house, she has a great job and a pension. Don't think you won't be able to start again - you will!

@ ATourchOfInsanity

Whatever anyone's specific circumstances, it is pretty clear that, if a woman has been a SAHM, even if her husband didn't agree with this decision and has thus lost on his share of her earnings thereby, it would tend to be treated in a divorce as an injury done by him to her for which he needs to compensate her.

It's not a position I'd want to be in.

@ wordfactory

How many women do we really think seek legal advice before marrying, or having DC or becoming a SAHM?

In the future, this will become advisable before having sex if some lawyers get their way.

The current wheeze is to alter the law around cohabitation to create more work for lawyers now that there are fewer married couples to divorce. This is being dressed up as "protection" for cohabiting couples, but if these couples wanted this "protection" they can of course just get married.

If the state starts imputing divorce-like liabilities to separating cohabitants, then why stop there? Why not make us "divorce" our boyfriends and girlfriends and pay them maintenance too?

The state has no business creating forced marriages. The people "protected" are lawyers, who've noticed that if people stop getting married, there'll be fewer people to sell divorces to.

apocalypto those very same arguments were used against the introduction of including contributions made by SAHMs. It didn't hold water then and it doesn't now.

Thanks olgaga and helloall your posts are really helpful. Your Mum gives me hope helloall I hope that's me.

In the good news just passed an OU assessment with 87% it's only a Level 1 but still......

87%!! That is excellent work. Keep going, girl! [bsmile]

And thank you for starting this thread. You have got many people thinking - and acting ...

Has anyone on this thread said their husband didn't want them to be a SAHM?
I think the point is that men would usually rather that than pay out for childcare.

We have already said here that the problem lies in when the woman wants to return to work, people imagine she has somehow lost all of her skills due to having and looking after a child. If it was easier for women returning to work to start where they left off with equal rights to promotion as the next person, then men possibly wouldn't need to worry so much about massively high financial contributions after a divorce because the woman can't sustain herself and DCs. *no idea on legal stance

I think a big part of the problem of trying to return to work ATM is the state of the employment market. I was made redundant 2 years ago and have had some freelance work, but am trying to get into a 'job' now DC are at school.

It has been SO tough as activity levels in my area of expertise is at an all time low, i have to have flexible hours (to work round DH's hours ) and i want to work PT to be there to pick up DC at least twice a week and to continue volunteering at the school.

In a growing market with low unemployment, returning to work is easier as your bargaining position is much better. At present, ex-SAHM's wanting PT/flexible work are pretty much at the bottom of the recruitment pile . Hopefully this situation will change if when the market picks up.

Yes Sizzle, and I think it's been shown that women's employment which is more often in service industries and in the public sector has been particularly badly hit in this recession. I think I heard 9,000 lost jobs for women in my region alone - that's East of England (not quite sure of time frame though - think less than a year)