Just how much is a stay at home wife and mother worth in a divorce?

[JFDIYOLO]

Reading some stories today of women in middle age whose husbands suddenly announce they are divorcing them - and that because the wives never had a 'proper job' or brought in any income while creating their family and home life, they are not entitled to any financial settlement ...

I got to thinking just what jobs SAH women do in a marriage, and what it would cost their husbands to hire in those services, if they did not have that free labour under their roof?

These home roles spring to mind ...

Surrogacy / adoption costs and fees if applicable where you are
Nanny
Nurse
First aider
Childminder / babysitter
Chauffeur
Social secretary and kinkeeper
Medical secretary
PA
Housekeeper
Shopper and grocery delivery service
Cook
Scullery maid / pot washer
Waitress
Cleaner
Laundry and ironing service
Gardener
Dog walker / dog trainer / pet sitter
Mediator / negotiator
Teacher
Dressmaker
Interior designer / decorator

Just noticed many of these roles could come under Downton Abbey-type paid service jobs.

Then multiply that by the number of years of marriage, to arrive at a realistic sum for an invoice ...

In these divorce cases, might it be worth having this kind of calculation done as a matter of course?

What's missing?

Well there was, you could have gone to court.

And a man could list, just as implausibly, that they're a full-time bodyguard, home security, handyman and mechanic.
Most divorces seem to be going 50/50 if in later middle age now.

Personally, I think it also depends whether the spouse’s decision to stay at home has massively facilitated the working spouse’s career.

I’m thinking about trailing spouses, for example, who make frequent massive moves to facilitate the working spouse’s career. Or a Services spouse who does everything for the family while their spouse is away for months at a time.

I don’t know how those more extreme situations are considered from a legal perspective.

I couldn't afford to, and we had to put the house on the market as my ex had stopped paying the mortgage. The delay would have wiped out all my savings and I wouldn't have been able to buy anywhere for me and my daughter.

Sorry your ex was an arse, he got away with a lot there if he didn’t give you what you were entitled to (and when I say that I mean what a court would have ordered) and also stopped paying a mortgage he was jointly liable for.

I didn’t go to court for my divorce either but my solicitor and his basically helped us negotiate to a settlement which would’ve been accepted by the courts, if he or I had taken the piss the other side wouldn’t have agreed to it and we would still be arguing the toss (and worst of all we’d still be married).

That’s not entirely true. 50:50 is usually the starting point of negotiations but it depends on multiple factors like the length of marriage, future earning potential and the age of children. I’ve just helped a good friend through the process and it definitely wasn’t 50:50 the wife was awarded in fact the judge pretty much agreed that now the children are in secondary school there was nothing to stop her getting up off her bum and working full time.

Agree it’s nuanced but it’s more true that this statement “…because the wives never had a 'proper job' or brought in any income while creating their family and home life, they are not entitled to any financial settlement ...”

The judge also told my DP’s ex wife she needed to get a job to help support herself but my DP still pays her spousal maintenance and will until he retires. Also child maintenance until children out of FT education. The spousal was adjusted down for a reasonable salary she could expect with her skills and qualifications. That was the “forward looking” part of the settlement, the assets were still ordered to be split pretty much 50/50.

Every case is slightly different but in my divorce I was told courts would not vary wildly for my case (I’m in Scotland which might make a difference - ie 70/30 etc no chance, 48/52 possible).

What country do you live in where this is necessary? Most developed countries have pretty standard 50/50 split unless 1 is caring for young children and needs a bit extra to house them. Both are expected to be working.

Working mums do all those things too

It depends on the age of the kids. A stay at home mum of kids say 14+ is perfectly capable of getting a full time job so shouldn’t expect to be ‘kept’ on a divorce situation.

younger kids, I’m on the fence tbh. I’ve always worked, I don’t really get the financial dependency thing. There would probably need to be a period of transition.

edited to add, all these jobs get done in my house too, I think SAHM spend far too much time trying to justify their worth - when no one but them really cares!

What can't SAHMs get it in their head that working mothers - and fathers - do all of those things too. They are also not 'work', they are simply being a parent. If you want to abdicate all financial responsibility to your husband, that decision is on you and it's usually a silly idea.

My DC go to school with quite a few mums of school age children who are swanning around working a day or two a week, with no pension. I just think - what are you thinking?!

They’re thinking they rather have less money but more time and greater autonomy over that time, clean homes, tidy gardens, maximum amount of time with their beloved children and husband, all jobs done so the whole family can relax and enjoy their weekends together, time to exercise/have a hobby and an absolute refusal to ever run themselves totally into the ground for an employer who would replace them in a heartbeat.

Working Mums in real life are far, far more honest about the fact they don’t do the same. On here for some reason they keep saying over and over again ‘I do exactly the same, I do all of that too!’ It must be to make themselves feel better on some level, but it won’t convince others it is true.

Real life working Mums are honest and ask for help, which they should and they acknowledge that:

• They can’t attend every school event, so regularly ask SAHMs to interact with their child, look at their work etc. Also SAHMs make notes in school information meetings then feedback- I had 3 separate requests for this at the last one.
• Several have aired that they’d love to do more for the PTA/school governing body, but don’t have time.
• Those who travel abroad for work miss after school park meet ups/play dates/birthday parties at weekends when flying out. One girl recently fabricated an imaginary birthday event after being upset her Mum flew out on my child’s party day she was at. She has never had anything organised, so now sadly makes things up.
• Several comment that they have no time to garden, one even picked a shared outdoor space as neither her or DH have time. She was very kind and honest when visiting my gardens about the hours of hard work and care it must take me to keep them so well maintained. It does- several hours a week. Saying ‘I do that!’ doesn’t magic up two properly thriving landscaped gardens.
• Several with older children are now taking long unpaid sabbaticals or drastically reducing their hours. In their words, even WFH is interfering with their presence after school. One says she wants to be ‘fully emotionally present and available’ throughout her eldest’s move from Year 6-7. One’s just had ‘the best Summer ever’ with her children.
• I have working Mums friends ranting on voice note that their house is ‘a bomb site’, furiously scrubbing grout in the bathroom at 8pm after a long day at work. Sadly they can no longer afford cleaners they understandably needed and DH’s often working even longer hours. The money wouldn’t be worth the stress for me.

So let’s ensure both sides of this ‘I do everything exactly the same’ party line are fully examined and these ‘opinions’ are held fully to account.

No, working mums can't do all that. Certainly, I do not have "two thriving landscaped gardens".

What many working mums disagree with is the importance of these things. I for one think that two thriving landscaped gardens do not make up for many of the downsides of having a SAHM in the family. (I live near several very nicely landscaped parks.)

And I've never "asked a SAHM to interact with my child" and would never consider this unless they are reciprocal playdates. It sounds like you say Yes too often and then resent it.

These threads never get anywhere because the argument against being a SAHM is a risk-based one. There's a CHANCE your dh could leave you up the creek, impoverished with no work prospects, there's a chance your kids will grow up having a sexist view of gender roles, there's a chance your dh will come to undervalue your contribution, etc etc. So when SAHMs say "but I'm fine", it's not really the point, you're one of the ones where these things didn't happen. But some of us wear seatbelts to reduce the risk, if you see my analogy.

There are regular threads on here where women are left by their husbands after decades of marriage, but they haven't worked for years because they didn't go back to work after being a SAHM. (No doubt they had thriving landscaped gardens but they had to get sold with the house.) I remember one in particular from last year and the devastation, financial on top of emotional, was really heartbreaking - I remember the op being sad about having to move to a tiny flat after being metaphorically the lady of the manor, and miserably applying for jobs after 20+y out of the workforce.

Of course most SAHM's marriages don't fail. Maybe only a small proportion do. But when they do, it must feel like total devastation. It's a risk-based thing.

Not at all, I only say yes to things I am happy to do, from people who are honest, respectful and value my help.

There are so many perks to the whole family to having a SAHP, few downsides except less money.

Agree that these threads never get anywhere. They are pointless, as people will always choose to be a SAHM despite a bit of negativity on Mumsnet 😂

Ive never agreed with this notion that a stay at home parent enables the other parent to have some sort of fantastic career that they otherwise wouldnt have had. Its nonsense.

I genuinely don't think that this is reflective of a lot of working 'mums' at all.
I never asked a sahm to interact with my child at school events, look at their work etc. One of us was always there, because my dp ( dc' s dad) wasn't a useless ornament in family life.
I didn't want to be involved in the PTA.
No travel abroad for work.
Gardening is only several hours a week, easy to maintain.
Scrubbing the bathroom grout at 8pm after work is bonkers. The majority of working parents are not doing this.
It sounds like the mums you speak of would have preferred not to work at all, a lot of us don't feel that way.

Agree, this notion is totally bullshit.

😂

So...the summary of my long comments is, no, we don't do "all" of that. Certainly I don't consider myself a "waitress" in my house (wtf). But dh and I jointly do the vast majority of all of the stuff listed in the op, alongside both working... we like to think our kids get all they need while seeing a balanced relationship dynamic, and I'm future-proofed in the unlikely event my marriage fails.

We certainly don't feel the need to give ourselves dubious job titles like "nurse" when we administer calpol at night

OP your post then makes the assumption that men are responsible for everything and by that same assumption your husband should ask what capital investment you would had to have had in order to get the return that his earnings contributed to your life.

Marriage and family is not so transactional.

Is it?

My Step brother’s wife has taken full responsibility for raising their 4 children, outsourcing nothing.

He is an extremely successful and highly paid lawyer. He leaves early in the morning, returns very late at night. Often stays away/travels. They have moved country 3 times so he can follow highly paid promotions. She has taken care of all of the new school inductions, making a new home and rebuilding their social life so their children can settle.

She is an asset to him and their family.

Many army spouses also lead on this, and cope with regular change and isolation to support their whole family. I admire their contribution, it must be tough at times.

You can contribute in valuable ways without earning money directly.

No, they are 50:50. If the man earns and the woman runs the home properly that’s an equal contribution. The wage earner does not deserve a higher level of societal approval, it IS a shared team effort.

I agree 😂, I want to hit the 😂 emoji every time I read someone saying ‘I do the same as you!’ 😂

OP’s list seems based on the idea that women become SAHM all for the benefit of their spouse. Like a job where you expect paying for your time because you otherwise have better things to do.
I expect many SAHM are doing exactly what they want to do with their time.