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?

I don’t really understand the saving the father a fortune on childcare fees argument either since the children are both parents’ children and it is being done at the expense of the SAHM earning money for the family. Also, for the breadwinner, it’s not really free labour because the fact that the SAHM is not earning means that the breadwinner has to pay for absolutely everything.

This is all totally fine if both parties are happy with it. As i said upthread, i think SAHMs and WOHMs bring different but equally valuable things to the table.

SAHMs should get a fair split of marital assets but not spousal maintenance
I can never understand why women want to be reliant on an ex DH

Oh my. I suppose it's a question of values. I do everything I can to be there for my children. The drudge - cleaning and gardening - I can pay for. My house and garden look great! And my children have every possible opportunity because I go out to work for it. I teach my daughters to go out, get the best degree possible, have their independence, uses their brains to the max, do interesting things not to sacrifice all that to be on the bloody PTA and organise the Christmas fete fgs!

Life insurance should be in place to ensure either parent dying is manageable financially given likely lower household income or higher expenses (more childcare) or likely both.

In any case many lone parents manage perfectly well having a career and children and don’t have to hire chaffeurs, chefs, dress makers, nurses, PAs, waitresses, housekeepers etc. Or “mediators” (no idea what that one was about! 🤣🤣 Do people generally need professional mediation to talk to their children? The OP’s post is bonkers. 🫣).

Well one of your daughters might decide she’d prefer to be a SAHM and be far happier, and that will be up to her not you.

You do realise some people work in jobs where none of those options are possible? No condensing of hours, popping in and out, flexing your diary, WFH. When my DH is at work in the job he does he is physically elsewhere working, as are many others. His parents are dead. No local family. If I wasn’t here, he would absolutely be reliant on wraparound 5 days a week.

Sure, but at least she'll know what she's missing.

I absolutely support the principle of fair financial settlements for SAHPs, but sadly, posts like the OP's tend to undermine their own arguments because they are so ridiculous.

SAHPs do of course contribute unpaid labour to their households, and they deserve a fair split of marital assets. The precise value of their contributions cannot easily be quantified. Not all SAHPs will do an equally good job, and the extent to which being a SAHP is a financial cost or a financial benefit to the family will depend on the SAHP's earning potential outside the home as well as the number and ages of any children, the extent to which the other parent would be able to work flexibly in the absence of a SAHP and the potential costs of alternative childcare arrangements etc. Some families will be better off as the result of having a SAHP, some will break even and some will be worse off.

Posts like the OP massively overstate the economic value that a SAHP contributes in all scenarios, and I think they actually have the opposite effect to that intended, because the ridiculous nature of their claims leads people to be dismissive of the work that SAHPs do. Better to focus on realistic arguments than over-inflated claims which just make SAHPs sound ridiculously out of touch and lacking in self awareness.

People who are underemployed generally significantly overstate the time required for - and value derived from - any task.

But that’s your choice - you want to be a martyr? Go ahead. But don’t moan about it.

Yeah, I worked long hours and managed all that. I didn’t have the luxury of being a SAHM🙄

This entire list is bizarre to me. Obviously both parties should come away from a marriage not being worse off, but not working is a choice and a luxury. And if anyone is being forced to stay at home and not work by their partner and forced to be a 'scullery maid' and 'first aider', then that's a different conversation.

My husband and I both work and all those jobs still need doing - they don't only exist for women who don't work. I'm not sure why having 40 extra hours in a week to do them deserves special treatment tbh.

I’m not complaining. I am pointing out how many people regularly lie about what they actually do, when actually they don’t do the same. Stop lying about it, it really is embarrassing to anyone who actually does hands on care work daily themselves.

I don't think you do believe it's a question of values. You clearly think that you have made a superior choice and see very little value in being a SAHM.

The strange thing is your narrative is incredibly narrow minded. Getting the best degree possible isn't the best thing for everyone, especially in a world where degrees are a huge financial investment and AI looms large. You think interesting things can only been done at work and that this is the only way to use your brain to the max. Again, lots of people don't find their work the most interesting thing that they do. I certainly don't! It pays well and affords us as a family to have opportunities and do actually interesting things with our free time but it isn't intrinsically hugely interesting in itself.

Volunteer work absolutely shouldn't be sniffed at. PTAs also aren't always small fry. England's 30 top PTAs raise £3.6 million for their schools. There is also the value PTAs bring to their students in enjoyment and enriching the school experience. This isn't easy to do and involves a huge amount of effort and time. It's interesting you think that this all so much less important than a corporate job that ultimately can deliver very little value to the community and can actively harm it in some cases.

Well now ive picked myself up off the floor after rolling around laughing at the ridiculous OP, I’m wondering where all these middle aged women who’ve never had a proper job are? Because I’m pushing 60, my children are now adults and I’ve always worked. Childminders and nurseries did exist in the 1980s and 90s; so did maternity leave. If a woman is daft enough and lacking in ambition enough to get to middle age without a proper job, then frankly you wonder what’s going on between her ears.

and as others have said, there’s nothing like having too much time on your hands to spin this tired old yarn about being a chauffeur, chef, laundry worker, administrator… it’s all a load of bollocks. It’s called being a grown up. I never called myself a housekeeper, social secretary, shopper etc before I had kids, though I managed to look after my home, do my shopping and arrange my social life as well as working. When I became a mum, I continued to do those things and work, as well as being a parent.

MN is full of this. I read posts and just feel like people are completely deluded. They will claim they do the same for their toddler (in nursery from 8an -6pm 5 days a week) than a SAHM who is with them 24/7! Yes, you probably technically do all of the same things but they are often by necessity in much smaller quantities. This is why you are able to work and why you pay a nursery to look after the child properly and interact, teach and nurture them. No shame in that but to pretend you do everything a SAHM does AND work is just blatantly untrue.

You do realise women with careers bring money into the family AND do your list of jobs as well?

It is a question of values, absolutely. I value hard work, creating an interesting life and opportunities. There is actually intrinsic value to work itself. Nowhere did I mention a corporate job...?! I'd like to encourage my children to maximise their potential in whichever way they choose - and whether you like it or not - you do need financial resources to do that. I'm very uncomfortable with showing my daughters that their main purpose in life is to reproduce so they can stay at home and look after their children.... I mean I don't really get the point in staying at home to create these wonderful, well-rounded people, who had such amazing early years with their mothers... If they're not going to do anything!

I don't deny those are my values and I think they're superior - most people think that about their values!

Thank you for this, I agree 100%, I see the same constantly and am tired of it.

If you are going to break down like that, then the obvious one missing is sex worker.

Someone could have the same values that you state -hard work, creating an interesting life and opportunities- and go about it in a completely different way that could involve being a SAHP, a volunteer or pursuing a passion or interest to the max. This is why you aren't talking about values but choices, very narrow choices.

Everyone needs enough money to facilitate the life they want but this will differ for everyone. I personally don't want to dictate to my children that one way of living is best but I do want to teach them to be independent and think for themselves. If they want to be a SAHP for a while and can do this without too much financial risk then I would absolutely support this. It is their life to live how they want and I absolutely see why someone would choose this.

People only do the PTA that actually want to! Working or not. Also, these fairs etc raise money for schools etc which is used for activities, trips and equipment, so quite a valuable use of time.

But that's your choice to take on that role. Who is forcing you? And what's it got to be with being a sahm? If you didn't do it somebody would need to 🤨 either the SiL or outsourcing.

Grim but valid - literally first on op's list is "surrogacy". The idea that I, as my kids' mother, can be equated/replaced by my dh paying a surrogate, is rank. (Thankfully my own dh would never think this way). Moreover op says this with pride, as if that increases her evaluation of the value she provides.

I'll say it again, op's list reveals that her family dynamics are seriously toxic. I assume/hope hers isn't the typical lot of a SAHM.

This reminds me of those “Mommy CEO” CVs, where somebody who is long term unemployed claims that paying their gas bill on time equates to “decades of book keeping and credit control experience”