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.

Actually strike that as apparently I can be bothered...

there are so many women on these boards over and over again stressing that on a moral and probably legal level- child maintenance and dad's seeing their children is not the same issue and should be independent, that although feckless dad A hasn't paid more than a dime for 5 years, well still of course mum should still try and drive cross the city to easily enable her baby darling to know daddy. It is for her darling's best. But that moral high-ground should go both ways!!!!!!!!

So what you are saying regarding withholding maintenance, true as it may be that it happens that dads may be tempted, and true that they may be hurt, and true that some dads actually do this. I (my opinion) think those dad's are the lowest of the low. Because the people who will suffer the most are the children involved. They are the ones who then may not afford food/uniforms/books/school trips/petrol to be driven to school and other fairly basic necessities.

I think that if mum is withholding contact (disclaimer: for no tangible or good reason like concern for safety/adequate basic caring ability etc) simply to punish dad, they are not much better. I do wonder how many do this though?

But (my?) reality is still. There are too many hapless dads out there, giving responsible dads who want and are able to provide genuine hands on contact and parenting responsibilities, a bad name.

I said I understand.
I don't approve.

My friend's ex wife tries to deny him access to his daughter(successfully ). She is sponging off her new very rich boyfriend and living in the family home he worked very hard to pay for - when she is not living in new boyfriend's luxury pad ( think Footballers' wives ) .
He doesn't earn much and supports his daughter financially and has considered not doing so to see if that makes ex wife more inclined to let him see his daughter.
It's bloody tragic and the ex wife is a total low life. These women do exist.

They don't garnish wages over there?

It's not always about money.

It's about - who takes time off work when one of the DCs is ill? Who leaves work when there's a phone call from school about anything? Who attends school events? Who has no leave left for an actual holiday because of the above? Me, me, me, me. Who buys the uniforms, takes time off work to take them to the dentist, doctor, optician, hospital, any extra lessons, school events, parties, clubs, etc etc....

Who can just say, 'Nah, don't fancy doing any of that.' Him.

LineRunner you've hit the nail on the head there. Few mums can just walk away and "leave it" to someone else - especially if they know it just won't get done - or even if there's a possibility that it might not get done. My DH usually works a 10 hour day.

It's not just the actual childcare, and the issues you have listed, it's all the other stuff. You forgot to mention the laundry, the shopping, the food ...

I have five days work coming up this week and I've worked like a bloody dog today to make sure the washing is up to date, fridge/freezer is full, meal plans, childcare backup is arranged...one sausage and two rashers of bacon will be available for food tech on Tuesday morning, reply slips to school are up to date, etc etc. Will go through the week hoping there is no illness or other crisis, dreading picking up an emergency text because DH is in another part of the country altogether.

I'm a "SAHM" who considers herself lucky to have the kind of "flexible" (consultancy type) work I have. Full time or even part-time permanent work would just be impossible.

But I'm in a better position than most because I put off starting a family until I was financially secure - but it did mean I only managed to have one glorious DD.

I know that this is going to sound very gloomy, but ...
MANY years ago (about 20) I worked for a pensions co. The first day there we had a training day where they told us the stats behind the need for pensions.

Out of every 10 people, by the time they got to age 60.
2 would have died
1 would be financially independent
the other 7 would be a mix of on benefits, reliant on someone else (e.g. a dp) for finances, still working or have a pension.

In other words, you DO need to save and put money aside. I know how hard it is. I spent a decade living below the govt 'poverty line'. Part of that was as a student, but it was also the first years of being married and being in my first job.

If only 1 in 10 people manage to be financially secure by the age of 60, the rest of us need to have pensions, put money aside etc etc And just pray that we aren't one of the 2 in 10 who don't even make it.

Those figures are probably well out of date, but it IS important to have long term financial plans that don't rely on one person being Mr Perfect (or Mrs) and always working, always having enough for a rainy day, never leaving, getting made redundant, getting sick or sleeping with the secretary.

The whole idea of the 'head of the household' who can support an entire family on just one salary is totally out of step with the current economy, and has been for generations.

Feckbox, please state for all to see that this scenario you have described is very much not the norm.

It is not what the vast majority of newly single mothers do. That lifestyle is not the lifestyle that 99% of single mothers fall into once they become single mothers after divorce.

I really value threads like this on MN as it gives me a glimpse into other people's experiences and wisdom of other women.

DP and I are hoping to start a family next year but one thing I am certain of is that I will not give up my job nor financial independence. DP is also more likely to cut back his hours than I, as he has more scope for freelance work and I earn more now.

My dad walked out when I was 7 and my sister 4 and although my mum got the house she couldn't afford to run it and was in an area with no family support as she'd always moved to support my dad's career. My dad paid maintenance for the most part, it wasn't until years later that we found out he'd done this not from his (very good) salary but by using the inheritance that had been left to my sister and me. Nice work daddy! Thankfully as a nurse she could return to the job market relatively easily, but the years out did have a financial toll and it did have an impact on us as kids as we never ever had spare money. Financially, she's stable now but has never recovered the position she would have had.

Kickass. Despite govt attempts to get stakeholder etc pensions taken up I suspect the current financial climate means that those stats are far far worse.

Math ohhh don't say that it is not normal, please can I have a rich man to look after me, so I can ignore my ex and the lack of maintenance he gives me please please.

No I also suspect it is really unusual to leave an impoverished x for a millionaire. But in that scenario yes the woman seems in the wrong, not knowing the ins and outs of the x relationship (you never know why a relationship ended unless you were in it, it may have been abusive).

Kickass it is terrifying what you say. Actually another thing for sahm to think about. My ex is currently contesting my right to any of his pension in the divorce, which I hope he won't win. But when you think that you could be home with the children and not be earning, and not even get a share of martial assets in the form of pension.

Yes Visualarts, and the flipside of that policy is that the income that the govt/student finance takes into account is the resident parent's household income, including any new partner. So the dc becomes the responsibility of the new partner and their wage affects any tax credits, cb, student loans for the dc, despite not being the child's father/mother. Which is quite a patronizing way of the govt of telling lone parents to go and find a nice new man to look after you, it puts them in a position of absolute reliance on their partner, and makes it far harder to establish new relationships, especially if they have a large family.

I have two children by two different fathers (I know! ). Neither pays any maintenance, and neither ever has. I mind about one, and I don't mind about the other, because for me it is about their time rather than money: DS1's dad buggered off to the other side of the world, earns plenty, and has seen him half a dozen times in the past decade or so ... DS2's dad stayed living locally, earns very little, has him over night twice a week and sees him whenever DS2 feels like popping round :)

That said, I am bloody glad I kept working part-time all through both boys' young lives, so that I have kept up my career and been able to support my children and myself.

OP I will also only have a state pension (if even that exists by the time I reach 68) but/so see my retirement a bit differently... I have stayed working part-time even though my children are now older, so that I can enjoy some free time and flexibility now - as I go along, so to speak. I know too many people who have waited until their retirement to do things they wanted to do, and then dropped dead or found themselves too ill. :( I don't want to delay living until it's too late, and though having little money is stressful, I find having too little time worse.

OP I'm sorry you are going through this.

I know it's been addressed but this really isn't about being a SAHM, it is about financial dependence.

I was a SAHM for 5 years and a fortunate one because we could afford to contribute to savings and a pension in my name. I appreciate that many many people are not in that position and finances are often stretched so far it is simply not feasible.

I have now returned to work and I am in the position that should DH and I split I will likely be significantly worse off than if i remained at home. However I am comfortable knowing that in that worst case scenario I would be able to survive without having to rely on him.

OP - things may not be as bleak as you think. You have 6 years before the financial crunch and this is more than enough time to obtain some qualifications and a job. At 48 i was bankrupt, unable to work in my original field and staring 50 in the face with no prospects I could imagine. Now I am 56, retrained, earning a good salary and very happy again. Stop being defeatist, it can only get you down if you let it.

I don't think that's particularly helpful to the OP, higgles. She is caring for two children with special needs and home educating one of them, because his safety wasn't given the priority it should have been by his school :(.

Absolutely agree Creme

I'm sorry it is a long thread and I did not see some of the extra information. I think maintenance can be continued for DC's in this situation beyond the usual cut off age and I don't think OP should be bullied out of claiming for herself by former partner's avowed intention of giving up work. At the time of my problems with work (which were about as serious as they come) I felt there was no way out but eventually I decided that things can only get you down if you let them.

Actually, I like what you said higgle it is so positive, and although the OPs situation is of course made far harder because her child has SN, it is good to hear when other people have made something really positive out of a negative situation and taken control of their future.

I have skim read this thread and to add my two-pennothworth, if there is one thing I have learned from all my time on Mumsnet it is to never be complacent about your relationship. The relationship board is full of women who never thought it could happen to them, but it did.

As a result, I'm not manically suspicious of my DH or anything like that, but I do think that, like any man, he is capable of cheating and behaving like an arsehole. I would never, willingly, put myself in a position where I was dependent upon him.

A significant measure of financial independence is essential for me. If everything goes to shit, I can fall to pieces emotionally, but I should be ok financially and materially.

Thanks to everyone who has shared their stories on this and other threads. Their words of warning should be heeded.

@ veryconfused

My ex earns £200k+ yet his legal team are insisting that I claim every bit of benefits that I can

Without being unsympathetic to your overall position, I actually agree with him about this.

If he earns £200k he's paying at least £84k in tax. Even if the state gives you £20k they're still £64k up on him. Why should he pay £84k in taxes and be less entitled to have his family supported than, say, someone who arrived here last week, has paid nothing in and whose children don't even live here?

The state has no business behaving like a dodgy insurance company that collects ever-inflating premiums then argues that the very size of the premiums you paid proves in itself that you shouldn't get a payout.

@ HoleyGhost

Misses out the many advantages to having a SAHP though.

I dunno. If you have two spouses and one gives up her career (it's almost always her still) for 5 years to be a SAHM, I assume that's a joint decision they agreed on. She's sacrificing her income, and he's sacrificing her income too, because she could have worked and they could have used the money to pay for child care.

If she could have earned £50k and spent £20k of that on a nanny, the cost might be £50k but the value of the SAHP is still only £20k. If the value is more than that to you then clearly looking at cost of losing your career is not considering the full picture.

If the marriage goes tits up it thus doesn't follow that she's suffered a £50k setback that he must compensate her for. What she's contributed was £20k a year of childcare at a cost however of £50k, which both at the time presumably thought was worth it.

Even if she earns £20k and the nanny costs £20k, the option is there to earn money, pay the nanny and maintain a career. If people are not doing that, it's because they want one SAHP.

That ^^ faux analytical attitude is exactly how men who walk away do actually get away with it.

The State is not responsible for giving benefits to the children of parents who won't pay but who can and should. It's responsible for the children whose parents cannot pay. Any parent who would rather their children lived on benefits than on money the parent can afford to give is absolute pondlife. There is no defence for either that or the man referenced upthread who was considering with-holding child support in exchange for contact. The only people punished by this sort of selfishness and entitlement are the children sired by feckless non-resident parents who think it's someone else's responsibility (whether that's the other parent, the State or the RP's new partner) to pay for their offspring.

If a woman earns £50K and a nanny costs £20K, her contribution to the childcare costs would be at most £10K not £20K, assuming you don't think the father of the children is exempt from paying for the care of his own children while both him and the mother are at work. Or a sum proportionate to her income. As for equating the monetary value of a nanny with a SAHP who doesn't stick to a job description, that is utter nonsense.