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?

You’ve saved your family a fortune, and the emotional contribution to your children will be worth its weight in gold.

I recently needed to book after school club for both to complete some training. I calculated the cost of this if were needed 5 days a week, which my DH would need if I suddenly died. It was half his salary! That was a ‘whoa’ moment for us both as to quite how much money I have saved our family being here.

Wishing you the very best of luck with your new chapter. You’ll be amazing at whatever you decide to do next!

Single parents don’t hire chauffeurs, waitresses, dressmakers, nurses etc to do basic housekeeping and childcare. They just do it themselves or it remains undone.
A woman (or either parent) who removes themselves from the workforce entirely for childcare will likely never recover their earning potential and will have reduced pension. I think this should be recognised. However, it’s ridiculous to suggest that working parents do fuck all in the home and don’t look after their dc or that being a sahm to children over 5, and certainly over 11, is something necessary that the older parent should be invoiced for. I was a sahm for 7 years. My kids did things they may have not been able to do due to the flexibility I had. My dh had less household and childcare responsibilities. I was not a waitress during that time. I’m glad I had the opportunity to do it but I wouldn’t invoice dh for the labour anymore than I’d expect him to invoice me for my room and board when he was paying 100% of the bills. When a marriage is ended, it doesn’t negate the fact that during the marriage, it was a marriage and you were a family. It was not business transaction.

Yes but how would he be able to have family otherwise? He'd still have to pay those costs as a single man, which he was always free to do.

SAHM is a very important role in a family and saves a lot of financial and other types of stress.

We do report on the work we've completed. The kids and home are the report card.

Then when you're done these men turn around and say make out that all the work you did never happened.

Also, if you google free government courses there are loads available online which can give you a gentle, low risk opportunity to try out something you may have always wanted to or not even realise you will be interested in/good at. These often come with free careers advice and guidance to linked further courses/work opportunities. Thankfully everyone involved has no issue with age/time out/family circumstances, truly kind and inclusive people!

OK, well that's definitely a shame for her, she'll just have to keep trying I suppose. Maybe someone will eventually give her a break.

I really don't see the point of this - I do all of this as a single parent who works full time. (and as per a pp, I do not bung meals in the microwave - I cook proper meals). I even clean my own grout.

the reality is it's worth nothing in a divorce and I think any woman who puts herself in this position is just really foolish. Unless there's severe disability, there's no need to stay at home until you're 50 these days. Even if you're happy being at home full time, you don't need to once the kids are at school.

SAHM here 👋 whilst my children are pre-school age, no regrets. I worked until I was 36 when I started having kids so I have all my NICs on track to be paid up for retirement.

I've saved our family thousands on nursery fees and wraparound care which probably my income potential would have only just covered. So it makes sense to not work & be very present in my small children's life & they seem to enjoy having me around.

Like others I do think that once kids are at school then at the least a part time job is doable during school hours?

I fall into the trap of thinking that I'm unemployed, but then I feel so exhausted. Much more exhausted than when I was working pre-kids. Perhaps I'm an unpaid domestic serf?

This is unrealistic on many levels. Medical secretary so being a working parent means you are incapable of making an appointment? As others have said single parents do all the sah parent roles often in addition to working and don't have to hire in profession services. The main saving a sahp makes is on childcare and that is short term with funded hours increasing. For those who are fortunate to be able to afford to stay at home should consider the impact on future earnings, career and pension carefully

WOHPs and SAHPs bring different but equally valuable things to the table. I have always wanted the financial independence that comes with earning a salary and i get a lot of satisfaction from my job and i value modelling this for my DDs, so I struggle a bit with the suggestion made by some SAHMs on MN that WOHMs deep down are just jealous and would love to stay home.

I’m in my mid-50s. My mum worked and my grandmothers worked. Women have worked outside the home for centuries and children have been raised in extended families. In many cultures, the grandparents care for the children while the parents work. To me it’s perfectly natural for a mother to work outside the home and great that she can, but it’s also great for mothers to be SAHMs if that is what they and their partner want.

Also some SAHM MN posters also tend to undervalue the importance of earning money, as if the breadwinner is not working equally hard to support the family in their own way. Destitution is a dreadful thing. No-one needs a landscaped garden. Everyone needs somewhere safe to live. The OP is a case in point and i think that’s why many have acted adversely to the attempt to raise the normal parenting activities and parenting admin she does above that done by WOHPs.

and what it would cost their husbands to hire in those services, if they did not have that free labour under their roof?

I struggle to understand this argument.

I know lots of people who do not have 1 person staying home, either they both work or they’re single parents and they do not hire services, they just do it themselves.

The only way a SAHP is sacrificing themselves is if they really don’t want to be one but they don’t have a choice.

You could not pay me to stay home and be a SAHP I would feel like an unpaid maid and I don’t believe anyone does this against their will.

SAHP choose to do it and could easily get a job if they wanted to and do I don’t understand the argument that they’re so hard done by and are saving their partners money and time.

However, when you get married it should be 50/50 in a divorce regardless of who works what and what income you both bring in.

If you’re unhappy that your partner is not contributing enough then it is on you to end the relationship sooner and not wait years to then say your DW/DH didn’t contribute enough and therefore should get less.

I don’t think at all that this work is degrading - I never said that. The degrading part is seeing yourself as secondary to your husband’s ambitions or only capable of a supporting role. If your only ambition in life is to support others then it’s not degrading yourself, but it’s a shame if you see that as something other women should give up their ambitions for.

Haha yes one wonders whether these people will be presenting their spouse with an invoice for that as well given that apparently everything people do in their own homes constitutes a financial transaction. Perhaps they even keep a tab of what their children “owe” them for food, clothing, holidays etc and present them with a bill when they move out!

No, he wouldn’t. He’d do what lone parents do: work and do household tasks after work. The cost of childcare (particularly with funded hours bow available) is far less than the cost of paying all living costs for an adult dependent and splitting your income and assets with them 50/50! I don’t think many people would hire a nanny or childminder on those terms, do you? Or are you suggesting that lone parents are forced to hire housekeepers, chaffeurs, PAs, chefs, medical secretaries etc? It’s preposterous, frankly.

I’m sure SAHP enjoy doing what they do and it’s nice for their children but it is a choice and not a necessity and of course working parents can have a career without the need for a SAHP, millions do so and manage normal household tasks perfectly fine. The OP’s post is really silly and exaggerated and it comes across as though she is insecure and struggling with self-esteem so trying to inflate the importance and difficulty of what are simply normal tasks of adult life that everybody does.

Minimum wage is over £25k per year now. You’re suggesting that after school club costs more than £12.5k per year? There are 39 school weeks per year so even ignoring bank holidays and INSET days, if children went 5 days per week to after school club throughout the school year it’d be 195 days, so over £64 per day according to you (after the 20% Government discount so £80 gross fees)? I find that difficult to believe unless you have at least 4 children all of primary age, in which case you could hire a nanny to care for them all for far less per hour.

This is aside from the fact that obviously working parents don’t generally use after school club every single school day. They flex working hours, do swaps with other parents, their children do after school clubs which are much cheaper, they pop out to collect them when working from home by taking their lunch break late, they condense hours or work opposite shifts to juggle it between them, etc…

The other side of this question is, how many of these fathers would have prioritised having children if a SAHM wasn't an option? It's glib to say, "Well, he would have had to have paid out £x on nannies if I wasn't at home/wasn't around any more" - would he have had the children at all? Maybe if had stayed a bachelor, he would have just prioritised his career.

Well exactly, I think if society is honest and men are honest, a large number of fathers are ambivalent about being dads, they love their kids and enjoy being a dad perhaps but are not or werent as motivated to have kids as their partners. So if it hadnt have happened, they wouldnt necessarily have specifically searched for that in their life.

Why should it always be 50/50 in a divorce? This isn’t how it works for very good reasons.

If one parent has been the main carer and main earner, brought more assets to the marriage and the marriage has been short, and will remain the main carer afterwards so needs to provide for and house the children and pay their childcare why on earth should the other spouse get 50% of the assets? Again you seem to be presuming all circumstance are similar and they are not.

This is why - rightly - the assessment depends on the individual circumstances, prioritising first the needs of any children and then ensuring both parties can house themselves and then dividing up any surplus in a reasonable manner depending on length of marriage, future earning capacity, assets pre-existing the marriage if it was not a very long one, etc.

The original post speaks specifically about women who chose to (or were required to) step away from employment, career, income, savings, pension etc in favour of being a stay at home wife and mother - and who are now faced with their STBXHs' claims that because they 'never worked' or brought money into the house they are not entitled to any financial settlement.

A statue in Spain

Medical secretary?
Waitress?
Scullery maid?

Wtaf? We are in the 21st century. You’ve missed off being unemployed!

As far as I understand, in the event of a divorce, assets are split equally?

OP, that list relates to being a parent.

I know this isn’t the point of your post but wtf, if you died your husband would hire two nannies to take care of your children?

My husband has a great career but blow me, if I died I know that he would reduce it without hesitation to ensure his children didn’t miss out, were fully supported after the death of their mum and he picked up everything I no longer could. I honestly don’t think I could remain married to him if I found out his plan was to just carry on as normal and basically replace me with a nanny if I died, really shocking and cold.

Are STBXHs claiming they’re not entitled to any financial settlement though? I’ve never heard of such a situation and even if that happened the court would enforce via the divorce settlement that the assets must be split in a reasonable manner reflecting the circumstances. Nobody leaves a marriage with 0% of assets.

OP hopefully after reading the replies on this thread you are comforted that those STBX’s would be told to jog on and cough up. They just wouldn’t get away with that stance.

I am definitely a believer that women should work and men should step up and parent too and share in looking after their home. Having all those jobs you listed only fall to the women in the home devalues SAHMs and causes working mums to burn out. Resentment builds in either scenario.

I respect that women do a lot but this statue doesn't solely apply to SAHMs.
A working mum could have a statue just like this but include the "weight" of utility bills, mortgage bills, childcare bills, a toxic boss, catty colleagues etc the list goes on. The difference is, my DH might have the same statue (he's responsible for all the washing up, cleaning the kitchen every evening, and he does over half the pickups and drop offs, as well as making breakfast for everyone in the morning).

Whereas your list in the op implies your dh doesn't lift a finger at home even to make himself a drink ("waitress"!) which is not a situation I'd want for myself or my daughter when she's older, or indeed my son and his future wife if applicable.

It’s hyperbole. This is what life insurance is for. Some posters are being very melodramatic!

Well it doesn’t make sense then as the life insurance should be to cover the drop in husbands earnings as he takes on more family responsibility. That’s what ours is.