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.

I have said on numerous occasions that women SHOULD be protected and take out insurances. This is what I have done. Repeat to fade. Repeat to fade.

Your words are here.......

In reality, as long as they're married, sahm's will get a bigger settlement to reflect their sacrifice and financial situation.

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.

It is certainly true that in most straightforward cases, a stay at home mother who isn't working will be awarded more. I've seen this happen three times amongst friends and my husbands friend, who specialises in family law, says that this is the most usual outcome.

another thing to remember is that very few of us who get divorced stay single forever. The 'financial disaster' is more of a temporary situation. Amongst my friends who've been divorced, all of them are now in new relationships or remarried. It's always easier to pool resources with another person; being married will always be financially better than being on your own. (but obviously not a reason to get married!) My Mother was in her late forties when my Dad died and is in her late seventies now. She never remarried. She's coped fine though, over the years. She returned to work when we were old enough to look after ourselves after school and we managed.
Not well off. But fine. It's certainly not all doom and gloom.

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.
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.

I stand by what I said. If you are married and have investments you'll get a greater share.

Elvis, reading back I think my last post came across more aggressively than intended. It's a subject I feel quite strongly about but I can see that might comes across as rude rather than passionate!

I think we probably agree but are coming at this from different angles, iyswim.

It's interesting that saying something which seems to me to be practical and common sense (ie women should make sure they are financially 'looked after'and can take care of themselves) is generating such strong, contrary opinions.

Is 'should be protected and take out insurances' a euphemism for RELY ON MARRIAGE

I've posted on MN elsewhere.

I never stopped working but ExH's selfish actions, and the rules that allowed and allow him to behave the way he does, will leave me in poverty in a few years' time.

The argument in OP's original post is actually true. It's not rare - it's very common.

I'm sorry I only just saw your thread, akaemmafrost.

I stand by what I said. Why don't you also post the reply from a lawyer who agreed that I was 'broadly correct' in what I said? It is true that solicitors take a sahm's weaker position into consideration in most cases where there are investments, savings, equity, pension etc.. my mistake was not saying MOST cases. Ask any solicitor. Google it if you don't believe me.

I wouldn't have expected you to do anything other than stand by your posts AL. Maintaining the same pov is your strongest feature

I shall now disengage because your posts are derailing an excellent thread.

I would like to hug all the posters on this thread who have posted from difficult situations and in despair. I sincerely hope you can turn your lives around.

Have read through my post several times now to see what dark controversy I unleashed and I just don't see it. What I said was very fair and very reasonable.

But a lot of women whose husbands walk out on them and young children these days are still 'starting out' and as a couple won't have anything except a mortage.

yes linerunner i asked that of AL way back...she only seems to be considering a wealthy marriage that breaks up...you cant have a greater share of nothing can you..

agreed Linerunner. I was talking about Mothers in longterm marriages where there are pensions, equity, savings etc.. was trying to redress the balance, suggesting that perhaps women are not always shat on from a height after divorce- that sometimes there's light at the end of the tunnel, financial help and recognition of what they put into the marriage.
It's not always fair though, you are quite right. And in my opinion, the problem is not The Housewife and getting all women out to work full time and children into full time daycare. The issue here is about respecting and recognising and protecting stay at home Mums and Dads.

and if that controversial statement is what unleashed a tirade of vitriol my way, well fuck me but that's weird.

apocalypto, your posts on this thread are brilliant.

Emma , thanks for starting a great thread

Well, autumn, the babyboomer years are long gone.

What this country faces now is a new generation of women facing middle age and pension years with next to nothing, while their erstwhile husbands/partners (fathers of the their children) have hoodwinked the nation into feeling sorry for them having any financial reponsibilities towards them whatsoever.

This is a massive political and social mess.

I am kind of thinking about teaching children with autism could be an option for me in the future. I imagine it's a job where experience would very much take priority over age

Well akaemmafrost I have to say that would be an incredibly valuable thing to do, there are so few people with the skills and the experience you have. Depending on where you are too, private tutoring could be really quite lucrative and very fulfilling.

Take a look at this charity which I came across looking at this website

sorry Linerunner, but that is a massive generalisation. There are many happy stay at home Mum's and many retired stay at home Mum's who are doing just fine, happy with the decision they made. And not in a mess. And not regretful. And not wishing they'd don't it all differently. And not living in poverty and misery. Sorry, but this thread is screaming out for another point of view.

How do you hide threads again?
Autumn you are willfully ignoring that this thread is simply about preparing for the worst, as an insurance IN CASE. Nothing about SAHM's being wrong etc.

That is all.

Can someone direct me to the hide button? Honestly can't find it!

Ah got it! Bye!

Women facing the future, autumn, not the ones living happily in the present. Which was the OP's point.

For every man who has his children's chances in (say) FE and HE means-tested against his ExW's income, there is an ExW who should be getting better support from him not the taxpayer.

Autumn I am alive and well years after first writing a will, I have amended it twice since then. Doesn't mean I shouldn't have written one just because I didn't die?

I've also not needed to make any major claims on either my home or car insurance, ever! so noone should bother taking out home/car insurance?

Lots of people enjoy their holidays with no problems at all, so they shouldn't bother with travel insurance?

And can anyone tell me why fathers who walk away don't have to see and help to look after their children if they don't fancy it, even when they are known to be perfectly capable of doing so, and local, and the mother also works?

Autumn you are willfully ignoring that this thread is simply about preparing for the worst, as an insurance IN CASE. Nothing about SAHM's being wrong etc.

You are wrong.
This thread is mostly about that, yes.
But many posters on this thread have stated quite openly and confidently that a woman should never stop working. They should not be a stay at home Mum. They should never depend on a man. To be a sahm is to be 'downtrodden'. They have stated this. I can paste, but don't need to. You can scroll back. Sometimes these comments have been owned and stated confidently and openly, sometimes implicitly.
On this here thread.
I'm not wilfully ignoring.
You're pretending that negative things haven't been written about the stay at home parent nothing about sahm's being wrong and telling me that this thread isn't about that.
And I'm disagreeing with you.

I worked/work and still got shat on and you are still arguing with me autumn.

you could equally be one of the mothers that worked FT who then got sacked by her employer without any meaningful pension after years of being underpaid and undervalued.

after having struggled through years of earning next to nothing after childcare costs.

that happens.

although the OPs situation is not unusual, working may not help you. having children puts you in a vulnerable financial position. that's just a fact. working isn't a cure all for it.

disclaimer: i have not rtft yet.