SAHMs

[daisylu]

link

Depending on who you are, being a stay-at-home mom can bring fulfillment or dread, and a question of how you can sustain yourself if your marriage ever leads to divorce.
And that was exactly the case for redditor Status-Mention6793 (or Status for short), who sought advice on how to handle her husband's request that she stay home with their children. Here's the story: "My husband and I (both 35) have been married for six years, and we have two children together and one on the way. He said that he wanted me to be a housewife and stop working."



"I was very disturbed by that, but he explained that it was better for our family and children since he can afford a very good living."



"After a few weeks of thinking, I told him that I would agree but only if I get half of his company. He was surprised by this, but I explained further that the more I stay at home, the less chance I would have to find a well-paying job should we ever divorce because I would have less merits, while he would stay making more money each year."



"So I want half of the company. If we never divorce, which is the goal of all marriages, then it wouldn’t matter. But, should it end, it would be the price of me staying home and raising our children so he could be less worried and stressed out (his words, that he would be less anxious and stressed out if he knew they were with me rather than with strangers in daycare or nannies).



When I told my friends, they called me the asshole. My best friend was very angry and called me disgusting. So, I am taken aback a little."

I do not think she asked for too much and her friends are AHs. What say you?

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Aug 1, 2024 13:58:46 GMT -5 daisylu said:

link

Depending on who you are, being a stay-at-home mom can bring fulfillment or dread, and a question of how you can sustain yourself if your marriage ever leads to divorce.
And that was exactly the case for redditor Status-Mention6793 (or Status for short), who sought advice on how to handle her husband's request that she stay home with their children. Here's the story: "My husband and I (both 35) have been married for six years, and we have two children together and one on the way. He said that he wanted me to be a housewife and stop working."



"I was very disturbed by that, but he explained that it was better for our family and children since he can afford a very good living."



"After a few weeks of thinking, I told him that I would agree but only if I get half of his company. He was surprised by this, but I explained further that the more I stay at home, the less chance I would have to find a well-paying job should we ever divorce because I would have less merits, while he would stay making more money each year."



"So I want half of the company. If we never divorce, which is the goal of all marriages, then it wouldn’t matter. But, should it end, it would be the price of me staying home and raising our children so he could be less worried and stressed out (his words, that he would be less anxious and stressed out if he knew they were with me rather than with strangers in daycare or nannies).



When I told my friends, they called me the asshole. My best friend was very angry and called me disgusting. So, I am taken aback a little."

I do not think she asked for too much and her friends are AHs. What say you?

I agree with you. 

[pulmonarymd]

i think she is a very smart women. He now knows the cost of what he wants, and the price to get out of the marriage if he should desire it.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I think she is smart.  She is sacrificing her own financial stability to make his business a success because he is now free to focus on it instead of everything else.  She absolutely deserves a stake in the business.

Too many women get screwed being SAHMS because they 100% trust their husbands to provide and that nothing bad will ever happen.

That's not reality.  People should hear some of the stories my grandmothers told about being a SAHM back in the 50s.   It wasn't this peachy keen fantasy a lot of younger women seem to think it was.  Being a woman then SUCKED.

If the husband balks at the idea I would refuse to be a SAHM.  Protect yourself and your own interests.  You don't want to be one of those little old ladies without a penny to her name once you find out your husband was embezzling all the company's earnings after he ran off with his 20 year old secretary.

It has nothing at all to do with "love" it is about risk mitigation.  I can love my husband all I want that doesn't mean I want him holding my entire financial future in his hands.  That's just bad business.

ETA: And make sure this is drawn up in writing and you both have your own lawyers.  Do not allow him to have his own and draw it up for you.  Protect your interest and your children's interest whatever is written down needs to be fair to both parties.

[billisonboard]

Fast forward to a possible interim outcome: Her marriage goes south and she is locked into a bitter ugly divorce - with her 50/50 business partner. Doesn't sound fun to me. If she isn't involved with the business directly, what shenanigans could he engage in as things start to fall apart? I think such details make what might sound good on the surface a bad idea.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Aug 1, 2024 14:13:01 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Fast forward to a possible interim outcome: Her marriage goes south and she is locked into a bitter ugly divorce - with her 50/50 business partner. Doesn't sound fun to me. If she isn't involved with the business directly, what shenanigans could he engage in as things start to fall apart? I think such details make what might sound good on the surface a bad idea.

He can buy her out if they divorce or they can sell the business and split it 50/50.  Or she walks away with a portion of the profits while he keeps the business itself.

That is what a written agreement would be for.  The courts aren't going to look too favorably on a husband who deliberately sabotaged things to try to get out of it.

It also ensures should they not get divorced but he becomes incapacitated in some way they don't immediately lose their source of income.  She can continue to operate as co-owner in his stead.

My mom could operate my dad's business in his stead. My brother and I operated it while my mom was in the hospital and my dad stayed with her. 

Should dad be incapacitated at the moment I would take over running it because I am local whereas my brother is not.  I'd run it until we came to an agreement about what to do.

He passes either I have to buy out my brother or we sell it.  Selling it requires we split the proceeds 50/50.  We already discussed a couple years ago we would sell because neither one of us in the space to be able to quit our jobs to run a business full time. 

[haapai]

Aug 1, 2024 14:13:01 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Fast forward to a possible interim outcome: Her marriage goes south and she is locked into a bitter ugly divorce - with her 50/50 business partner. Doesn't sound fun to me. If she isn't involved with the business directly, what shenanigans could he engage in as things start to fall apart? I think such details make what might sound good on the surface a bad idea.

Alimony still exists because of this situation.  It's insanely difficult to assess the value of a business, especially a professional corporation, unless you are actively involved and have saved receipts and have several years of  bookkeeping on a thumb drive. 

[Opti]

Aug 1, 2024 14:13:01 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Fast forward to a possible interim outcome: Her marriage goes south and she is locked into a bitter ugly divorce - with her 50/50 business partner. Doesn't sound fun to me. If she isn't involved with the business directly, what shenanigans could he engage in as things start to fall apart? I think such details make what might sound good on the surface a bad idea.

If it is his only source of income, doing shenanigans would be stupid. What could be included in the agreement is how to value a buyout of either person's share and even who their share of the business should go to if they die or are incapacitated. And perhaps various avenues to spin off part of the business or be a silent partner that would only get 50% of the income generated. Checking his tax returns every year post divorce would be one way to make sure things are above board. 

[Opti]

Aug 1, 2024 14:31:30 GMT -5 haapai said:

Aug 1, 2024 14:13:01 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Fast forward to a possible interim outcome: Her marriage goes south and she is locked into a bitter ugly divorce - with her 50/50 business partner. Doesn't sound fun to me. If she isn't involved with the business directly, what shenanigans could he engage in as things start to fall apart? I think such details make what might sound good on the surface a bad idea.

Alimony still exists because of this situation.  It's insanely difficult to assess the value of a business, especially a professional corporation, unless you are actively involved and have saved receipts and have several years of  bookkeeping on a thumb drive. 

Alimony is almost nonexistent in this era of everyone should work or could work. Alimony is more to support progeny not a spouse that risks their future earnings on your behalf. Even 5 years of alimony post-divorce isn't going to do much for someone unless they are young and this happens early in the stay-at-home stage versus 18 or 22 years later.

[minnesotapaintlady]

My answer would depend on how long he's had this business and how he got it.  If it's something they built together, absolutely 50/50.  If he's taken over the family business that he was working at before they were even together I'd probably be really leery of signing up to give up 50% right out of the gate if I was him.  I'd think it would be more fair to have it be a certain percent for every year that she stays home until it hits 50.  But, you know...I've been divorced twice, so that absolutely clouds my viewpoint. 

Also, as Bills stated, I wouldn't want to be in business with either one of my ex's...even the one I get along with...nor would I want them to have to dissolve their business and lose their livelihood to buy me out.

[billisonboard]

Aug 1, 2024 14:18:47 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Aug 1, 2024 14:13:01 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Fast forward to a possible interim outcome: Her marriage goes south and she is locked into a bitter ugly divorce - with her 50/50 business partner. Doesn't sound fun to me. If she isn't involved with the business directly, what shenanigans could he engage in as things start to fall apart? I think such details make what might sound good on the surface a bad idea.

He can buy her out if they divorce or they can sell the business and split it 50/50.  Or she walks away with a portion of the profits while he keeps the business itself.

That is what a written post-nup would be for to outline what happens in the event of divorce.

It also ensures should they not get divorced but he becomes incapacitated in some way they don't immediately lose their source of income.  She can continue to operate as co-owner in his stead.

My mom could operate my dad's business in his stead. My brother and I operated it while my mom was in the hospital and my dad stayed with her.  Should be be incapacitated at the moment I would take over running it until a decision could be made about its future.

If it is still running when my dad passes my brother and I have the option to either co-own it or the other would be required to buy the second party out.  Or we can sell it with the agreement the proceeds are split 50/50.

Having no idea what the "business" is, impossible to counter any of the above. If the above is generally possible, great. If not, for example if running the business requires expertise she doesn't possess, then I stick with my "doesn't sound fun".

[billisonboard]

Aug 1, 2024 14:34:21 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 1, 2024 14:13:01 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Fast forward to a possible interim outcome: Her marriage goes south and she is locked into a bitter ugly divorce - with her 50/50 business partner. Doesn't sound fun to me. If she isn't involved with the business directly, what shenanigans could he engage in as things start to fall apart? I think such details make what might sound good on the surface a bad idea.

If it is his only source of income, doing shenanigans would be stupid. What could be included in the agreement is how to value a buyout of either person's share and even who their share of the business should go to if they die or are incapacitated. And perhaps various avenues to spin off part of the business or be a silent partner that would only get 50% of the income generated. Checking his tax returns every year post divorce would be one way to make sure things are above board. 

And people don't do stupid things in divorce situations?

[pulmonarymd]

He wants her to be a SAHM. He can decide what he is willing to give up, since she is giving up her future earnings. Otherwise, continue the status quo. He then gets to keep the business as is. This is all negotiation

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Aug 1, 2024 14:42:09 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 1, 2024 14:18:47 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

He can buy her out if they divorce or they can sell the business and split it 50/50.  Or she walks away with a portion of the profits while he keeps the business itself.

That is what a written post-nup would be for to outline what happens in the event of divorce.

It also ensures should they not get divorced but he becomes incapacitated in some way they don't immediately lose their source of income.  She can continue to operate as co-owner in his stead.

My mom could operate my dad's business in his stead. My brother and I operated it while my mom was in the hospital and my dad stayed with her.  Should be be incapacitated at the moment I would take over running it until a decision could be made about its future.

If it is still running when my dad passes my brother and I have the option to either co-own it or the other would be required to buy the second party out.  Or we can sell it with the agreement the proceeds are split 50/50.

Having no idea what the "business" is, impossible to counter any of the above. If the above is generally possible, great. If not, for example if running the business requires expertise she doesn't possess, then I stick with my "doesn't sound fun".

I don't think the situation has anything to do with "fun".   She's losing her income stream in favor of being a SAHM to support his business.

And it is not just her current income stream.  By exiting the workforce she loses SS contributions, employee retirement contributions plus compound interest, any raises she would have gotten in said time frame and experience.  She can't just re-enter the workforce like nothing happened in the event of divorce or illness/disability.

Even if she isn't co-owner there needs to be some type of agreement in place for him to fund her financially. 

Statistically speaking women end up worse off in the event of divorce, especially SAHMS.  There are lots of elderly women in poverty because of this set up.  She also has children that she would need to help support.  Statistically single mother households are the worst off 

There needs to be protections that are agreed upon by both parties for her sake.  If he refuses to any then that's a red flag that she shouldn't become a SAHM.

I am sure a financial advisor and a good lawyer can help them draw up an agreement that benefits both parties and protects her.

And she needs new friends if they think she's being an asshole for watching out for her own well being.

[billisonboard]

You'll have more faith in lawyers' ability to draw up bulletproof documents to cover unknowable future events than I.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Aug 1, 2024 14:53:18 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

You'll have more faith in lawyers' ability to draw up bulletproof documents to cover unknowable future events than I.

Then she doesn't agree to be a SAHM.  He gets to keep his income stream and she doesn't have to worry about the risk to her financially or otherwise.

Ta da!

Are you proposing she take on the risk of losing her income stream without any compensation from him in exchange because of what "might" happen in court?

I'd expect he fund a retirement account in my name only and we'd have one heck of a life insurance policy in addition to LTD and STD policies on him just to start.  The rest can be hammered out as we go.

I love my husband very much but our marriage is a legal transaction.  As such I look at it as a business arrangement when it comes to things like deciding I am going to be a SAHM.  People call me cold for that but I've heard too many horror stories to risk my financial security in the name of "love".   Shit happens even if it isn't a divorce.  Protecting my own interests benefits all of us long term.

[Opti]

Aug 1, 2024 14:44:15 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 1, 2024 14:34:21 GMT -5 Opti said:

If it is his only source of income, doing shenanigans would be stupid. What could be included in the agreement is how to value a buyout of either person's share and even who their share of the business should go to if they die or are incapacitated. And perhaps various avenues to spin off part of the business or be a silent partner that would only get 50% of the income generated. Checking his tax returns every year post divorce would be one way to make sure things are above board. 

And people don't do stupid things in divorce situations?

Absolutely. I was in a divorce support group when I went through mine. My XH was an upstanding man from the Midwest so while he might not do what is in my best interest, we both have an internal code that we would not act as AHs just because we were divorcing. The bad shit that I learned about in the support group was from women older and previously more well off than I was. Their to be XHs worked outside the home and felt entitled to it all in many cases or felt she was entitled to very little in slightly less AH cases.

[billisonboard]

Aug 1, 2024 14:52:05 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Aug 1, 2024 14:42:09 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Having no idea what the "business" is, impossible to counter any of the above. If the above is generally possible, great. If not, for example if running the business requires expertise she doesn't possess, then I stick with my "doesn't sound fun".

I don't think the situation has anything to do with "fun".   She's losing her income stream in favor of being a SAHM to support his business.

And it is not just her current income stream.  By exiting the workforce she loses SS contributions, employee retirement contributions plus compound interest, any raises she would have gotten in said time frame and experience.  She can't just re-enter the workforce like nothing happened in the event of divorce or illness/disability.

Even if she isn't co-owner there needs to be some type of agreement in place for him to fund her financially. 

Statistically speaking women end up worse off in the event of divorce, especially SAHMS.  There are lots of elderly women in poverty because of this set up.  She also has children that she would need to help support.  Statistically single mother households are the worst off 

There needs to be protections that are agreed upon by both parties for her sake.  If he refuses to any then that's a red flag that she shouldn't become a SAHM.

I am sure a financial advisor and a good lawyer can help them draw up an agreement that benefits both parties and protects her.

And she needs new friends if they think she's being an asshole for watching out for her own well being.

My parents divorced after 30 years of SAHMing. There was no plan in place prior. i am aware if the issues at that end of the possible outcome. She certainly does need to put in place a plan to protect herself. I was only commenting on her proposal of how to do that protecting. I think it has the potential to be ugly.

[minnesotapaintlady]

I personally don't think she should consider being a SAHM because it's not something that she wants to do.  Just say no and move on.

[billisonboard]

Aug 1, 2024 14:55:15 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Aug 1, 2024 14:53:18 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

You'll have more faith in lawyers' ability to draw up bulletproof documents to cover unknowable future events than I.

Then she doesn't agree to be a SAHM.  He gets to keep his income stream and she doesn't have to worry about the risk to her financially or otherwise.

Ta da!

Are you proposing she take on the risk of losing her income stream without any compensation from him in exchange because of what "might" happen in court?

I'd expect he fund a retirement account in my name only and we'd have one heck of a life insurance policy in addition to LTD and STD policies on him just to start.  The rest can be hammered out as we go.

I love my husband very much but our marriage is a legal transaction.  As such I look at it as a business arrangement when it comes to things like deciding I am going to be a SAHM.  People call me cold for that but I've heard too many horror stories to risk my financial security in the name of "love".   Shit happens even if it isn't a divorce.  Protecting my own interests benefits all of us long term.

I am saying that the idea of lawyers being able to draw up documents that will be concrete enough to protect her in a few years, a dozen years, and thirty years with ownership of half of her husband's business which could skyrocket or enter bankruptcy at any point in those years is shaky to me.

I think your ideas are a better approach. A life insurance policy is something I told my father he would provide for Mom when he was leaving her so, yeah, that.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Aug 1, 2024 15:05:04 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

I personally don't think she should consider being a SAHM because it's not something that she wants to do.  Just say no and move on.

I was wondering why the sudden change of heart on the part of the husband.  

It's not that people can't change their minds but after 6 years of marriage and two (soon to be three) kids he brings this up now?

I'd be concerned nowadays someone went down the tradwife worm hole, especially since he seemed surprised that his wife would request a stake in his company as an exchange for quitting her job.  If this was something he had really put thought into I would expect he come to the table with a proposition.

And her friends calling her names over it.  What circles does she run in?

I know DH has always dreamed about having a SAHW/M like his mother.  That was a pretty intense discussion when the idea of marriage was brought to the table.

He also recognizes he cannot afford it.  His dad could afford to raise three kids and have his wife at home on his income.  His dad was the one that laid that out to him and backed me up regarding refusing to stay home.  I had mad respect for his dad in that moment.

Before she agrees to anything she needs to find out why the change of heart on his part and how he plans to make up for the loss of a second income.  Does the business make enough to provide for them as they have become accustomed to? What happens if he becomes disabled/sick?  What kind of health insurance can they afford on just his income? What about retirement funding?  What luxuries is he willing to give up if need be?

[billisonboard]

These things always drive me crazy from the standpoint we have a one person, 5 paragraph start which we either accept as a fair, accurate description of the situation or not. We then tend to fill in all sorts of details based on whatever. Just saying.

[minnesotapaintlady]

Aug 1, 2024 15:19:07 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Aug 1, 2024 15:05:04 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

I personally don't think she should consider being a SAHM because it's not something that she wants to do.  Just say no and move on.

I was wondering why the sudden change of heart on the part of the husband.  

Well, with the 3rd one on the way, it may just be he's starting to think about paying childcare for 3 at once and juggling running multiple kids around after that.  I know I'd be doing a lot of math!

[dannylion]

If he agrees to her getting half his company in the event a divorce and she does become a SAHM, she should also ask for a regular salary for the service she is providing to his company.  If having her stay home with the children relieves him of stress and worry, then it benefits the company by making him more effective.  She should be compensated for making that possible, and it should be her money, not communal money.  He is asking her to give up a lot, so he should be prepared to compensate her for having the benefits he wants to realize from her sacrifice.  It seems the husband is thinking only of his own comfort and convenience and needs to be reminded that his wife has agency, and he should be ready to accommodate whatever conditions she might request should she agree to his request.  

Also, she should find some new friends.  The ones she has do not seem to be supportive or residents of the real world in this century.  

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Aug 1, 2024 15:30:16 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Aug 1, 2024 15:19:07 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

I was wondering why the sudden change of heart on the part of the husband.  

Well, with the 3rd one on the way, it may just be he's starting to think about paying childcare for 3 at once and juggling running multiple kids around after that.  I know I'd be doing a lot of math!

Maybe.

One of the few things I took away from the book Lean In was to factor in future earnings/compound interest/retirement contributions/SS against daycare.  I had not thought about it like that so I did a lot of number crunching.  We had A LOT of people just assuming I would quit after Abby because "daycare is so expensive!"

Yeah it is but I was only 30 when we had Abby.  That's potentially 18 years out of the workforce and I had 30+ years to go before retirement age.  Would what we were saving in daycare make up for what I was losing?

I will say that I was privileged to be able to do that and while it sucked donkey balls we made it work and it's paid off for us.  Not everyone is in that position.

They need to run the same cost/benefit analysis together regarding her job and his business.  When we ran everything if we HAD go that route it actually would have made more sense at the time for DH to give up his earnings.  That was not what DH expected.  It was just assumed by him and everyone around us I'd quit.

Especially if she carries the health insurance.  They need to look into that because going without especially with three kids is a HUGE risk.  Would he be able to fund a policy for a family of 5 on his income stream?  Staying working just for the benefits is sometimes something you need to consider, especially in America with our for profit health care system.

[billisonboard]

I would have to find a well-paying job should we ever divorce because I would have less merits, ...

Is "merits" in this context a term I don't know because I am old and out of touch or is she likely not in the United States? I get its general meaning but can anyone explain if it is more specific in another country.

[minnesotapaintlady]

There's a lot to factor in there besides money though, which is why I don't think she should do it.  If it's not something you want to do you're going to hate it and be resentful. 

I stayed home with my oldest and even though I ended up divorced without a job during that time I wouldn't go back and undo that decision.  But I went back to work when Carrot was 3 months old and wouldn't change that either...so...

[pulmonarymd]

Aug 1, 2024 15:47:07 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Aug 1, 2024 15:30:16 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Well, with the 3rd one on the way, it may just be he's starting to think about paying childcare for 3 at once and juggling running multiple kids around after that.  I know I'd be doing a lot of math!

Maybe.

One of the few things I took away from the book Lean In was to factor in future earnings/compound interest/retirement contributions/SS against daycare.  I had not thought about it like that so I did a lot of number crunching.  We had A LOT of people just assuming I would quit after Abby because "daycare is so expensive!"

Yeah it is but I was only 30 when we had Abby.  That's potentially 18 years out of the workforce and I had 30+ years to go before retirement age.  Would what we were saving in daycare make up for what I was losing?

I will say that I was privileged to be able to do that and while it sucked donkey balls we made it work and it's paid off for us.  Not everyone is in that position.

They need to run the same cost/benefit analysis together regarding her job and his business.  When we ran everything if we HAD go that route it actually would have made more sense at the time for DH to give up his earnings.  That was not what DH expected.  It was just assumed by him and everyone around us I'd quit.

Especially if she carries the health insurance.  They need to look into that because going without especially with three kids is a HUGE risk.  Would he be able to fund a policy for a family of 5 on his income stream?  Staying working just for the benefits is sometimes something you need to consider, especially in America with our for profit health care system.

This was exactly what I pointed out to my wife when she was questioning whether working was worth the cost of daycare. She stuck it out, and her SS will be 89+% of mine, and we have all those years of retirement contributions and employer match(something I do not get) to enjoy when we retire. Too much short term thinking out there. She also carried our insurance as it cost us less(I would have paid almost 100% of the cost for health insurance. She jokes at how little her take home pay is/was, but it was a significant benefit for her to work.

[Opti]

Aug 1, 2024 15:29:40 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

These things always drive me crazy from the standpoint we have a one person, 5 paragraph start which we either accept as a fair, accurate description of the situation or not. We then tend to fill in all sorts of details based on whatever. Just saying.

It is from a reddit thread. You can check it out and see if she has dropped more info than is in the article.


www.reddit.com/user/Status-Mention6793/

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

There was one where the wife had been prominently involved in the development and start up of THEIR company.  As the children came, she stepped back more.  Over the years, she documented every single bit of her action, digitized it and stored it in a safe location.  

Fast forward and the kids are grown.  Son wants his wife to do what his mom did.  MIL told wife that she has a fallback in that she has been documenting her contributions to THEIR company and has it safely stored away.  Husband got all bent out of shape, how dare she expect to take part of HIS company.  Her response was ‘the fact that you consider your company YOUR company and not OUR company is the reason she has the documentation’.  

The DIL refused to be a SAHM after this.