What rights does a SAHM have when it comes to a move for the family breadwinner?

[Anonymous]

There's so much gray area here. How bad are things financially? Is moving the only way to solve the problem?

What's concerning- and I see this on DCUM often- is the working spouse isn't really looking for a better job, they just happen to hear of one and decide that specific job is the only thing that will make them happy. usually it doesn't actually make them happy- it's just that the grass looked greener- and they start wondering what the grass looks like elsewhere. I wouldn't agree to uproot my family on a whim; I would only move if my spouse had spent several months actually looking for a better job locally and turned up nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I would assume that married adults make family decisions about whether it is best for one parent to be home with the kids, and likewise they make joint decisions as to whether to move or make any other big decisions. There are many pressures in the world, financial, those of being a hands-on parent, and many more. Also, family decisions are made based on issues other than pressures as well. The parties’ happiness? Anticipated security? All sorts of things. I can’t imagine what my response would be if I were a stay at home parent and my husband came home and said that he had the right to make final decisions about huge family issues, like where we live, because we had decided together that it would be best for one of us to be home with the kids. That approach pretty much assumes that, and being home with kids, be working spouse is somehow accommodating the spouse providing the hands-on childcare. That the at home spouse in a fact works for the dominant, prioritized spouse who works outside of the home. To me, that’s just crazy. FWIW, I am a WOHP mom with a time intensive job.

+1000 on this. OP, your use of the quoted word “right” implied to me that as the sole WOTH parent, you think you deserve a 51% vote on family decisions. Also, money isn’t everything. Also, I suspect you may have other reasons and are using money as leverage.

— Another WOHP Mom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I would assume that married adults make family decisions about whether it is best for one parent to be home with the kids, and likewise they make joint decisions as to whether to move or make any other big decisions. There are many pressures in the world, financial, those of being a hands-on parent, and many more. Also, family decisions are made based on issues other than pressures as well. The parties’ happiness? Anticipated security? All sorts of things. I can’t imagine what my response would be if I were a stay at home parent and my husband came home and said that he had the right to make final decisions about huge family issues, like where we live, because we had decided together that it would be best for one of us to be home with the kids. That approach pretty much assumes that, and being home with kids, be working spouse is somehow accommodating the spouse providing the hands-on childcare. That the at home spouse in a fact works for the dominant, prioritized spouse who works outside of the home. To me, that’s just crazy. FWIW, I am a WOHP mom with a time intensive job.

+1000 on this. OP, your use of the quoted word “right” implied to me that as the sole WOTH parent, you think you deserve a 51% vote on family decisions. Also, money isn’t everything. Also, I suspect you may have other reasons and are using money as leverage.

— Another WOHP Mom

+1000000000000000
I had to respond to this post because I almost choked on my drink. If you have children, the decisions must be joint and agreed upon together. The parents whether it be the mom or dad is staying home because it's what's best for the family and is doing unpaid work. Money is def not everything and if your spouse is saying they get to make all the decisions because they work, that would not work for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I would assume that married adults make family decisions about whether it is best for one parent to be home with the kids, and likewise they make joint decisions as to whether to move or make any other big decisions. There are many pressures in the world, financial, those of being a hands-on parent, and many more. Also, family decisions are made based on issues other than pressures as well. The parties’ happiness? Anticipated security? All sorts of things. I can’t imagine what my response would be if I were a stay at home parent and my husband came home and said that he had the right to make final decisions about huge family issues, like where we live, because we had decided together that it would be best for one of us to be home with the kids. That approach pretty much assumes that, and being home with kids, be working spouse is somehow accommodating the spouse providing the hands-on childcare. That the at home spouse in a fact works for the dominant, prioritized spouse who works outside of the home. To me, that’s just crazy. FWIW, I am a WOHP mom with a time intensive job.

+1000 on this. OP, your use of the quoted word “right” implied to me that as the sole WOTH parent, you think you deserve a 51% vote on family decisions. Also, money isn’t everything. Also, I suspect you may have other reasons and are using money as leverage.

— Another WOHP Mom

+1000000000000000
I had to respond to this post because I almost choked on my drink. If you have children, the decisions must be joint and agreed upon together. The parents whether it be the mom or dad is staying home because it's what's best for the family and is doing unpaid work. Money is def not everything and if your spouse is saying they get to make all the decisions because they work, that would not work for me.

Another poster compelled to sign on to this. Marriage is a team, and you make decisions together as to what's in the best interests of the family regardless of who is or isn't earning however much money. For some it might be best for the family to move and take that more lucrative job. For others, foregoing the more lucrative job and staying put might be the better choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it should be a discussion. No one should be making the decision unilaterally or vetoing.

OP: I get that. Nobody wants to be married to a domestic dictator. But if one person has all the financial pressure, shouldn't he/she be accommodated?

Lol OP, sure. Do you want to stay married? Then no.

Or ask my mom. They arguably had a pretty great marriage until my dad followed the path you described and told my mom we were moving away from Marin County in Norcal. To Ohio.

He was the breadwinner, lower COL, kids were young so what's the problem?, he asked.

You don't have to ask me if they're still married. But I love my stepdad!

[Anonymous]

Both partners have a say.

I’m also going against the grain and going to say that the working partner should have the greater say, unless there are needs (medical, psychological) that benefit from being in one area.

I agree SAH parents have a huge burden, but they can perform that burden anywhere. If the WOH Parent can provide a similar home and lifestyle, with less stress, and better work/home/life balance, than that deserves greater consideration. Yes, your child will have less access to the museums you never go to, but you can get into an Ivy From any city.

Being able to provide a better life relative to COL is a plus. If you’re not working, your providing benefits that could happen in Seattle, DC, Minneapolis, Fresno, or NYC.

I know, some cities have better bragging rights than others.

[Anonymous]

The way I look at it is where we live is a family decision (kids get a vote, but not an equal vote).

I am the primary wage earner, earning 95% of the family income, but my wife gets a nearly equal decision on where to live. I say nearly equal, because economics does factor in. She may want to live in a place where my expertise is not valued, and I would work at a fraction of what I make now.

But, similarly, if I get an offer to move somewhere, she gets veto power. I can still move, but it is not reasonable to require her to move.

Growing up, my father unilaterally joined the Navy when I was 11. That was horrible for the the family (unilaterally joining; not discussing).

When I was 17, he unilaterally decided to move again. I said no. And I found a place to stay on my own. Parents did not move.

I would not put my DD or my wife under that kind of stress.

[Anonymous]

I am a SAHM and would LOVE it if DH wanted to leave here for a better job. I have the opposite problem he wants to stay and basically refuses to look for work elsewhere. He doesn't say this outright though - he says, "Sure, I'd move for the perfect opportunity!" Well, shocker, he hasn't found that yet.

I have made my peace with it but it sucks.

[Anonymous]

Over my career I've seen a number of very talented people see their careers stall because their SAH spouses refuse to move. There are certainly instances where moving would be very disruptive (e.g. special needs child) but many of the refusals are purely social (hometown, friends etc.). Spouses should be willing to thoroughly discuss the pros and cons of the move, but giving a SAH spouse veto power will come back to haunt them when the career stalls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Over my career I've seen a number of very talented people see their careers stall because their SAH spouses refuse to move. There are certainly instances where moving would be very disruptive (e.g. special needs child) but many of the refusals are purely social (hometown, friends etc.). Spouses should be willing to thoroughly discuss the pros and cons of the move, but giving a SAH spouse veto power will come back to haunt them when the career stalls.

I'm the SAHM PP right above you who said she wishes her DH would be willing to move. I do believe his career has stalled because he is inexplicably stuck here. Its a shame.

[Anonymous]

I was a SAHM and we made moves all over the country for new jobs - not transfers. East Coast, west coast, south, midwest. I definitely had a say in the moves but we were relocating to pretty desirable areas. I had moved a lot as a child as we followed my dad's career so it wasn't a new experience for me. We always went over the pros and cons and we never faced the risk of a veto. I believe if I had had a very good reason for not moving (ill parent) we would not have moved.

[Anonymous]

Ideally, it should be the person who makes the money gets the most decision making power. In practice, though, unhappy wife = unhappy life. Pick your battles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Over my career I've seen a number of very talented people see their careers stall because their SAH spouses refuse to move. There are certainly instances where moving would be very disruptive (e.g. special needs child) but many of the refusals are purely social (hometown, friends etc.). Spouses should be willing to thoroughly discuss the pros and cons of the move, but giving a SAH spouse veto power will come back to haunt them when the career stalls.

It's okay for people to make the decision to forego career advancement in favor of their family's other needs and interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it should be a discussion. No one should be making the decision unilaterally or vetoing.

OP: I get that. Nobody wants to be married to a domestic dictator. But if one person has all the financial pressure, shouldn't he/she be accommodated?

That person should not be accommodated, but that financial pressure is a factor to consider when making the joint decision.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ideally, it should be the person who makes the money gets the most decision making power. In practice, though, unhappy wife = unhappy life. Pick your battles.

Let me guess: you're not married.