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?

Thank you for your honesty. Some Dads share the load, which is different to when 1 parent does everything. No issue with people who are transparent about that difference.

I agree that the notion is not bullshit. It's true it's easier for a man to progress in his career if he doesn't have to lift a finger at home.

Unfortunately it's very risky for the wife. Because in the event of a divorce (which is unlikely but still possible), he maintains his earning capacity but she has none.

There's also a real risk that everyone in the household, including the children, develop a skewed sense of gender roles. Like the op's "waitress" comment - does she really fetch all her dh's drinks and snacks for him, like she's a waitress? Sorry but no thriving landscaped gardens would make up for feeling like my dh's waitress. Gross.

When a third of marriages end in divorce I don’t think we can say it’s ‘unlikely’ .

oh just googled to check and it’s actually more now, 42% in England and wales!

It should be a legal requirement that as many scenarios and their likely outcomes are contractually signed in a prenup prior to getting married. Not very romantic but then at least all parties know what they are in for should things go pear shaped.

So?

They simply would have arranged their lives differently if she was also a highly paid and successful lawyer, got a nanny in or whatever system they wanted to use. It wouldnt have stopped him or her having the career they wanted to have. They may also have decided not to have as many children in the first place, was it his choice to have such a big family?

Sure, we are in agreement- it's a real risk that's worth safeguarding against. Less than 50-50 but still a real risk.

Oh yes, I forgot how on MN the next target after SAHMs is those with larger families. They were much wanted children by both. Many men and women still prefer having more children and building a larger family than limiting their family to advance careers. Myself, I’m happy with 2 children, but I do not understand or agree with all the negativity towards those with 4 or more children. Up to them.

You get half of assets, what you don’t get is ongoing payments usually

What stories are you reading OP? Husband decides to leave wife if middle age and she's not recieving anything? Sounds very unlikely to me.

Your list is a bit silly too. Even if she did all those things she's only doing each one for an hour or two a week, so all in all it's still only one salary we're talking about here. Or two if she's busy 14 hours a day, I suppose but when I was SAHM I wasn't busy all day!

The wider point that I think you're making - that being SAHM is helpful and useful to the husband is certainly true. What's also true is that the income from his job is helpful and useful to her.

Yep, my guffaw at this bonkers view may have just lost me my quiet morning.
That posters sounds like they paint themselves as a benevolent Stepford SAHP, magnanimously saving not only their own beloved family, but the waifs and strays of these terrible, work exhausted other parents, who clearly just cannot love their child as much as Nigel does....🫤 Brava Nige...

I’ll never understand why some women degrade themselves by marrying someone who clearly doesn’t think men and women are equal or that ‘a woman’s place is in the home’. Or why women in that position sometimes act like their life is something all women aspire to. It’s a horrifying example to set to your dc (male or female).

Btw - main earner in my family, with a DH who shares responsibility for our house and dc. If my DH had a job earning loads I’d probably still be working, but if not I’d be fulfilling my own ambitions somehow, not spending all day gardening.

In this situation, I think a man who knows he wants an extremely successful and highly paid career chooses their partner carefully. One who is happy to take on the role of sahp.
To then turn around in a divorce situation and say I sacrificed my career for you etc etc is crazy because both parties agreed to it ( and often before the children were even here).

Degrade themselves? Why are you making it sound like it’s only ever the man’s decision for the wife to stay home? We can think for ourselves.

The op is looking at it the wrong way round as well as just being wrong.

It doesn’t matter how much you value each individual element of a SAHP’s job, the defining factor is the amount of money in the pot. If there is no equity in a house and no pension, there is no way a SAHP can cope without getting a job in the event of relationship breakdown and conversely, if the WOHP is earning millions with further millions in assets, pricing jobs is likely to leave the SAHP in a far worse position than a straightforward division of the assets.

What is really important though is not to be an SAHP without marriage unless you have enough money to live off in your own right. That is where too many people still find they’re completely shafted when a relationship ends.

We’re so sure everyone gets divorced on here…my Steo brother and wife met at university aged 18. Still happily married in their late ‘40s. One of the happiest marriages I’ve seen in fact. Very happy for them- their arrangement clearly withs very well for them all.

How utterly misogynistic to describe care of children, those who are elderly or ill, those who clean and garden as ‘degrading’.

I do hope your (most likely female) childminders, nursery workers, nannies, au pairs, after school club workers, care home workers and cleaners don’t happen to read what you really think of this type of essential work!

I simply must be superwoman then, who does all of those things plus works full time,. Go me!

Coconutter I agree with you 100%. My comment on yours was directed at the poster you were replying to.

Take care you don’t burn yourself out, genuinely.

Thanks, I was just about to say I definitely don’t see it as degrading it was a question to the poster.

You do realise it’s pretty easy for SAHPs to rejoin the workforce? My Mum walked back into a job after 17 years at home, I’ve walked back into after 7. So much scaremongering on here it’s unreal. It’s all about how you sell yourself and your varied, transferable skills.

@RaspberryRipple2 this comment is for you

You sound really defensive. I couldnt care less how many children someone has there was no negativity in my post or implied. The point was, there is obviously more child care work involved from both parents when there are more children and its fairly unusual to have 4 kids these days, which is why I asked as it would have been easier no doubt if they had fewer children.

I think you don't understand risk at all. Some marriages succeed, some fail. The point is that we don't want to be totally prospect-less in the event of divorce.

I've never been in a car crash but I still wear a seatbelt. And divorce is more likely than a car accident.

It's just not a good argument to say "but my/my sil's marriage is fine". That's not how risk works. That's equivalent to "I never wear a seatbelt but I've never been in a crash and neither has my SIL"

Again, two isolated examples is not indicative of the norm. Anyone in charge of hiring will tell you that it's a huge disadvantage if you've been out of work for long periods. Especially over 10 years.