"Having a career cost me my child" - Article in this month's Eve magazine!

[Citronella]

I read this article with a knot in my stomach as the subject is v. close to the bone for me. In the end I had to agree with one of the interviewees which is to say to any woman contemplating a role reversal in terms of breadwinner/stay at home parent, " Don't do it. Never do it. You will be punished". I would add a caveat which is if you are going to do it, let it be absolutely clear between you for how long.
Many women of my generation were brought up with the belief that you should get a career and not fall pregnant too young because you would waste those career opportunities. But also brought up in the belief that you didn't need to be dependant on a husband. Many of us followed that advice and concentrated on careers or just on paying for mortgages, bills, and food because it was inconceivable not to be self sufficient. But no one said anything about how strong the biological clock would tick and just how strong that maternal instinct would be.
The article says " Increasing numbers of women are being legally separated from their children-not for drinking or doing drugs, nor for hitting, ignoring , or walking out on their children, but simply for being the main breadwinner in their family...(the CSA) has almost 67,000 cases of British mothers living apart from their children; many of them loving, devoted parents who never dreamed that choosing work instead of staying at home full-time could count against them"
The thing is I'm sure (as it was for me) that while choosing to have a career many did not to be the sole breadwinners in the long term. That's just the way things worked out.
So you hold it all together for years but when the marriage fails you stand the risk of losing your children.

Anyway, sorry for rambling on. This article has been in my head for a few days now and its a subject close to my heart as I said earlier.
Not really looking for advice but any shared views/feelings or experiences welcome.

Bumping for Xenia

hi citronella what was the article sort of saying? that if you work fulltime and then split up with your dp/dh,your less likely to get the children?
is that if the dh works fulltime too.

Oh Citronella

Having only read the OP, I was going to post in a manner most flippant "having a child cost me my career"

But that makes very very sad reading.

Citronella
There have been threads on this subject before on MN, there are quite a few women here who are the main or sole breadwinners for their family, and I think regardless of how they get on with their other halves it is the subject of much concern
I don't see either of the two who immediately spring to mind posting tonight though

Although I have every sympathy for you in your distress Citronella, isn't this what has been happening to men for years and years and years.

Playing devils advocate here, would not wish this scenario on ANYONE-male OR female.

I often thought that when I worked and DH was a SAHD, I was the main earner for over a year which meant that DH was DC's main carer.

A friend of a friend lost custody of her children for exactlt this reason, not long after this I took voluntary redundancy and decided to stay home with my DC's.
We are lucky that I was able to make that decision and can afford for me to stay at home now.

I've been the main breadwinner - not through choice -, dh das been a SAHD. Now our situation is different, and, thank goodness, he has never shown any inclination to leave me, but exactly this scenario haunted me on occasion.

Sorry if this is the case for you Citronella.

I am very happily married but am the higher earner and I have to admit that when dd was first born it did occur to me that should we split he'd be in a very strong position re residence as he was a sahd for a while and I worked full time. However, we now both work ft oth and are both fairly happy about it plus are not anywhere near splitting up (afaik, I know he could be about to leave me for nubile younger woman but I doubt it).

Xenia had to pay her ex a large sum of money so she has Views on this. But at least she kept her children.

I was a sahm for 5 years (with ds, who is from first marriage) and tbh, that damaged my earning power so much I wouldn't recommend that either, I wish I'd gone back to work sooner.

I think it can be hard whatever you choose. Divorce is never easy but even worse if there's a possibility of losing your children.

I know of a woman in this position. She worked full time and her dh stayed at home looking after the 2 kids.

They split acrimoniously and now she only has contact with her younger dd. Both girls live with their dad and the older girl won't see her mum at all. I'm by no means close to them so know little of the detail but have no reason to believe she behaved in any way to "deserve" this.

Having said that, I suppose this is what has been happening to men for decades. Very said either way, really.

It is sad. I (think/hope) I will be one of the lucky ones but the fear of the very real risk of losing your children must surely mean that many women are staying in unhappy marriages that may otherwise not or at least not for so long. I have tried to see it from a male breadwinner's point of view and can kind of see where Fathers for Justice are coming from. But, for me, it doesn't take away from the fact that for a mother to lose her child is like ripping apart a piece of her. Biologically, or however you want to put it, its just not right. I think it would send me insane.
Lionbeast,
The article interviews some women who have lost the residency/custody of their children to the father who was the main carer as she went out to work because she had the greater earning potential. Courts are increasingly 'child focused' so don't want to upset the status quo of the child's daily routine.

Doesn't this just suggest that there is something very wrong with a world in which women are expected not to be able to have children, a good job, and a partner, while it's assumed that it's fine and perfectly feasible for men to have all three (because, of course, women exist purely to make it possible for men to have all three)?

I guess I do accept though that were dh and I to split up and were he to have residence of dd (ds is from another marriage so he would def stay with me as he's been with me all along) I would have to pay him maintenance for her. And that's fair enough. I get maintenance from ex dh for ds and if that's all I had to pay dh#2 (while he limited his career due to childcare, sickness, etc etc) I'd be rolling in it frankly.

I really hope it doesn't ever happen though and I do feel for any woman who worked hard to support her family and then loses her children. I do think women are still sometimes punished for working by the system.

Agre Madamez, it's awful.

And men are considered saints if they sah whereas women are not.

Er...so who is meant to look after the kids?
The state?
If you have kids it is up to you and the child's father to sort it out as best you can.
It's called being a grown up.

Yes Moondog but understandably whoever works is less likely to get residence in the case of divorce. And if it happened to me I would be devastated. And there is no option NOT to work, if I didn't work we wouldn't EAT.

That seems a drop in ocean in schem of things. It is vast majority of blokes who lose out.

Well I wouldn't care if it was 'the vast majority' of blokes if it happened to me though.

I would wonder whether I'd made the right choice by working hard to support my family tbh if it meant on the breakdown of my marriage I had to lose my children. I know it happens to men.

So does that make it right moondog ? What the op is saying is that its not an equal playing field.

I work much harder than my DH both in the office and at home. I earn 4 x what he does but that doesn't absolve me from all the organising , arranging and generally managing domestic life and if we divorced I would end up paying him and possibly losing the children too. Just because I worked.

As Citronella says be aware of what the consequences of having it all really are...........thanks Germaine !

MP

Wickedwaterwitch post 21:56:39 - indeed they are!
And you don't really win in the workplace either because you are still seen as a mother more likely to be needed 'special treatment' and flexibility re childcare arrangements (sick days, leaving early, being bleary eyed because it's still you who had to be up half the night with a teething/breastfeeding baby).
Yes madamez it's just not the same as a woman. I know I always felt guilty which ever way. Either at work because I'm thinking about my babies, at home because I'm worrying about the next deadline at work, or in my relationship because I'm just too damn tired at the end of the day and I really don't need grief from a dh.
I digress.

It is very tricky isn't it?

Women and men being seen as equal in terms of opportunity has always been important to me - however, it hits one hard when one sees that equality isn't always in favour of the woman's rights.

I think that there is a strong argument for more equivalence of rights for men, in terms of residency of children. I would prefer though that that takes the form of shared care, where that is not to the detriment of the child's needs.

I also know women on MN who are the main or sole earners who worry about this aspect of being in that position. If care was shared more equally, recognising that providing for a home, is as valid a contribution to being a good parent as running a home is, then I think some of those concerns would dissipate.

As far as maintenance goes, then I can see no basis for the main or sole earner not supporting the other partner, be that partner male or female.

WWW that's exactly what I mean. I'm not really talking about where you both go out to work or where you could even take it in turns to go out to work. I'm talking about where you HAVE to go out to work because if not there would be no food on the table, debt collectors at the door, and mortgage not being paid.

The problem with shared care in a divorce situation is that it can actually be detrimental for the children particularly if they are very young. As was explained to me, shared care means shared care and that is they live half the week with the mum and half the week with the dad or one week at a time or two weeks at a time. That can be very unsettling for a young child imo.

I think if at all possible, it is encumbant on the parents to try and make it work.

If the option is to lose care of your child completely, then you would think people would move heaven and earth to make it work!

For many women in the situation you describe in your OP, it is the best chance they have.