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.

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?

Yes, this is wrong. I have no idea why any parent would want to avoid contact with their child, but it happens. I've seen it happen myself. Fortunately most men don't do this. There are ways, legally speaking, to help but not guarantee ensure absent Fathers pay up- but sadly nothing to make a man actually be there both physically and emotionally, for their child.

Excactly, Edgar, especially where fathers who walk away are allowed to pay such a small relative amount because the rest is picked up by the taxpayer, and only to a very limited standard of living for the ExW and children, even if the father lives quite well.

The ExW meanwhile, no matter what her qualifications and experience and desire to work in her field, falls further behind career-wise because because having children puts you in a vulnerable financial position.

women can and do just up and sod off too, but far far less mothers do this than fathers

you could equally argue against working, as you might possibly end up having to pay your Ex-H maintenance. that happens also.

Which goes back to OP's point and she is right.

EdgarAllan, that's what I think too. Having children absolutely does leave you vulnerable financially. Especially if you have more than one or two of them. I have three and know families with 3,4 or 5 children. If you choose to have a large family, there's a good chance you'll opt to have either a stay at home Mother or Father because childcare for more than one or two dc's is so prohibitively expensive. And so logistically exhausting.

I wouldn't turn back the clock.

But I would like a law that requires capable parents to bloody well parent. Not letting the ExSpouse and the taxpayer take up their slack.

Why should the public purse pay for my ExH's lifestyle choice to walk away and have little to do with his children?

He works for the public sector, is well paid, lives locally. Because he absolutey refuses to look after them, ever, I have limited career options.

p.s. and it's not that rare - hence the whole meme 'Disney Dad'.

I agree LineRunner. It is shit and it is wrong. And there will come a time in his life I am sure, when it might be too late, that he feels deeply ashamed of his behaviour. And what will he have missed out on? Everything. What an idiot he is. Life is unpredictable. Human beings are unpredictable. Nothing is guaranteed. We can all make plans for the future and have a shit hits the fan backup plan, but wont know what to do until it actually happens.

When my Dad died unexpectedly and left my Mother in a house she couldn't afford, with no job, no life insurance, no benefits..she sold it, for less than it was worth, and moved 70 miles away.
It wasn't easy.
At times it was properly shit.
But she did it. And she's stronger for it. She's in her late seventies now and after 30 years of singledom (she never remarried) she knows how to do DIY and even basic plumbing around the house. She fixed a leaky ball valve not long ago at the ripe old age of 78. We've not had an easy relationship, but without a doubt the way she dealt her shit hand has strongly influenced my attitude to What If scenarios. My attitude is : Prepare, then Live. Don't worry about anything until it Happens

It's not about toilet valves.

It's about the political structures that permit this wide-scale farce to continue. Maria Miller refused to answer a single question about this issue even in general during her recent MN webchat.

Ah, but it is about toilet valves.
For me.
Because that is MY reality.
How do you catch an errant Dad and make him responsible?
You can't.
It's a massive social problem with many faceted causes and possible solutions. Sure the government can help apprehend the bastards, but they can't do it all and solve it all. And no government since the dawn of man has managed it. Nor will they ever.
It always starts with the way we raise boys and the social constructs we put into place. We are all responsible, not just government. Prevention is better than cure. The government can help with the cure, getting the feckless Dads to pay up and show up- the paperwork and litigation- but it's parenting of boys, in the beginning, and changing the way society views boys, which will slowly change the way the world turns.

'Pay up.'

You do realise the relative proportions of income paid by resident parents and absent parents?

My ExH - 10%.

Me - everything. Including my career chances and my future.

Yes, I do. And that is the crux of the problem here. Not the fact that a woman, or man, chooses to be a sahp for a while then the dc's are growing up.

It is a structural problem and not just something solvable if individual women make the 'right' individual decisions.

Which quite frankly was being cogently argued back in the 1980s, but hey ho, long way to go.

You have my sympathies OP. This makes me so cross. I would love to be a SAHM but I earn as much as DP even though I only work 4 days a week. What has happened to you, happened to my mum. For that reason alone I always vowed to be able to support myself to a degree. I left a lucrative sales job and went into accountancy as it was safer long term. I have a good friend who stays at home. Yet she is made to feel like a drain on the finances. I on the other hand with my DP contribute therefore feel more equal.
My point is that even in this day and age women still run the home and in cases work. Yet when things go wrong men can walk away so easily leaving mums to be the sole carer giving up their careers. The ones that gave up work earlier on to make things nice and bring up the kids find that when things go wrong are left in a very vunerable financial position. IT IS NOT FAIR.

Cannot possibly read 715 posts, but just adding my post to say I totally agree with OP. Had no idea 3 years ago what the consequences would be. I am hoping to retrain (after my professional career in City was killed dead after return from ML) but I will be in my early 50's by the time I start looking for new positions. Very depressed about it all and the total injustice. My ex earns £200k+ yet his legal team are insisting that I claim every bit of benefits that I can and also trying to insist that no SM is paid. I detest him (which isnt great when you have a child together) but also the money grabbing bitch he is shagging who also earns £100k+ and who seems to hate me .

This is what I find really upsetting - that men who ealk away will encourage their ex-P's to use benefits to bring up their children, while they themselves are earning good wages.

Just because these men want it, doesn't mean Government should allow it. These men should pay, out of their own wages.

I currently now get £150 pcm child support for two DCs from a man in a management role. My career is fucked, I know that.

Christ veryconfusedatthemoment, I am seething for you! £300k and is dragging his feet?? It is for his child/ren and their mother! My dad got me in to FT work to dodge maintenance I found out years later. Seriously what wankers.

It's the proportionality that is wrong. Like singing Doris Day when your life is Edith Piaf.

Sorry, badly expressed, and I'm going to bed.

Neither of us have the type of job where it really matters if you have been out for a while, but will bear your advice in mind if any of us get that kind of job.

Great thread. So much to think about.

The fact that so many men refuse to support their kids should be a far greater source of social shame than it is. It's almost become a badge of pride in some sectors. And of course, it's implicitly endorsed by the women they end up in new relationships with. So much for the sisterhood. If men cant afford to have children in their second/third relationships, then tough shit. They should be supporting the children they already have, not having to have their weekly fivers prised from their mean little grasps by the bloody CSA.

It's a completely different thread, but it would be interesting to chat about the fact that so many men don't contribute meaningfully to their children's upbringing in terms of time, and don't financially support them, and does that mean that women are, in general, better and more committed parents (yes, I know that's massively controversial statement, hence needs to be another thread). When I'm feeling brave, and have time to contribute, I'll start it.)

However, I think that the courts should consider that if access is not awarded 50/50 then there should be some financial compensation to the parent who is basically providing the childcare, whatever the financial situation of the non-resident parent.

The USA is much tougher on this issue and courts will garnish wages after 3 counts of pissing around.

'PAY FOR YOUR KIDS' is a much firmer line in the US.

I've just found out my dh has been having an "emotional affair" with a woman at work. I'm a Working mother with one dc and another dc on the way, and whilst I feel very vulnerable at the moment I do know that I have the financial freedom to make choices independent of my dh's financial support. That's renewed my absolute belief in mothers continuing to be economically active and the need to restructure society to enable them to be so. I'm lucky to have that choice, many don't.