Anonymous wrote:I’ve been a SAHP for over 15 years, but I would say the most valuable years were from 5th or 6th grade to 9th grade. Kids in late elementary/middle school become involved in more activities like scouts, sports, and music lessons and it’s a lot easier to manage with a SAHP or one with a very flexible schedule. When kids get to high school, they can often catch rides with older neighbors or friends, or ride the activity bus.

NP here. I absolutely agree with this. You’re more available when they need you most- emotionally and physically.

Outsourcing childcare is easier when kids are little. They’re easily entertained, no homework/activities/friends to juggle. Daycare is open all day every day.

Working FT becomes much more difficult when kids are older. Teacher workdays, long breaks, early release. Homework. Sports practices and games. Managing screentime. Friend issues. Mine liked aftercare okay until 3rd grade and then they wanted sports and friends after school. We tried an au pair for a while but her driving was terrible and she sucked at helping with homework. So, now I don’t work FT anymore…

I'm in the 6th grade to 10th grade camp. Agree with lots of PP who say that those are by far the most difficult years emotionally for most kids as they start navigating social life, changing bodies, kids getting sexual, certain friends having access to social media, etc. I have heard from 10+ people in their 50s that this was the window that their kid needed them the most, by far. And they felt that their physical presence -- as the driver of the car (when kids shockingly open up as they aren't face-to-face with you), the homework tester, the day off companion, etc. -- was critical important to their child.

My kids are just entering this phase, but I have known three 100% career-driven women who reached ages 45-48 / twenty years in the workforce and decided to slow down during the middle school and early high school years, mainly because of a fear of the increasing mental health issues, social media / video game isolation, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The early years, even though they are harder because you don't know how they are being taken care of elsewhere. It's a no-brainer. What's better for YOU vs THEM should be the question here.

Former daycare teacher who would never send my kids to daycare especially as an infant because I witnessed too many teachers being rough with babies, toddlers etc.

Cuz you know the wellness of the parent has zero impact on the child

As the daughter of a SAHM who never prioritized her own needs I can tell you we would have been better off at daycare.

You have no way of knowing that. Grow up

Anonymous wrote:The early years, even though they are harder because you don't know how they are being taken care of elsewhere. It's a no-brainer. What's better for YOU vs THEM should be the question here.

Former daycare teacher who would never send my kids to daycare especially as an infant because I witnessed too many teachers being rough with babies, toddlers etc.

Cuz you know the wellness of the parent has zero impact on the child

As the daughter of a SAHM who never prioritized her own needs I can tell you we would have been better off at daycare.

Birth to kindergarten. There is literally nobody else who will take care of your kid with as much love and attention as a loving parent would. I do not believe in outsourcing full time care before the child is able to report what is happening to them. It often requires financial and career sacrifices and reprioritizing what is important for those early years but it is worth it.

Anonymous wrote:Birth-18

I would do this if I had a trust fund or some other source of separate property.

Anonymous wrote:Birth-18

This

The early years, even though they are harder because you don't know how they are being taken care of elsewhere. It's a no-brainer. What's better for YOU vs THEM should be the question here.

Former daycare teacher who would never send my kids to daycare especially as an infant because I witnessed too many teachers being rough with babies, toddlers etc.

Anonymous wrote:As someone who stayed at home from 0 - 8 with my oldest and 0 - 5 for my youngest, then returned to work, then faced a crisis that required me to stay home (a cancer type diagnosis in one of my kids), I regretted staying home earlier because it made finding the resources to do so later really stressful.

I also regretted that staying home early set up a dynamic where I did everything and DH provided. When that dynamic should have changed because I went back to work, it didn't and I ended up doing everything. Later, when health needs were overwhelming and it had to change, it still didn't and our family shattered.

I loved being home with my kids, and yet I wouldn't make the choice to stay home with healthy kids again, if it meant sacrificing work life balance for my DH, and/or long term savings.

Agree. The opinions here are all over the board, but in my opinion, the best setup is to work until your oldest is at least 10, and when you have a lot of money saved for retirement and fully funded their college accounts, then "retire" to be with them through their teen years. The younger years are the easiest to outsource. By the time your oldest is in elementary school, you should be in a position in your career where you can make demands, like reduced hours and WFH. By middle school, if you've done well, then retire to be a full-time SAHP with financial security.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been a SAHP for over 15 years, but I would say the most valuable years were from 5th or 6th grade to 9th grade. Kids in late elementary/middle school become involved in more activities like scouts, sports, and music lessons and it’s a lot easier to manage with a SAHP or one with a very flexible schedule. When kids get to high school, they can often catch rides with older neighbors or friends, or ride the activity bus.

I agree. The activities are most difficult to manage from about ages 10-15, and those are the ages when they most protest having a nanny or au pair driving them around or helping them with homework.

But with flexible jobs, work from home, etc. it’s easy to work on your laptop from practices, etc. I would be bored out of my mind as a SAHP to kids this age. They’re at school or in sports most of the day.

Anonymous wrote:Birth to 5 years old.

Agree with this. Once they are in school there is a LOT of downtime during the day so not really worth it at that point if one parent has a flexible job. Also those are the formative years.

As someone who stayed at home from 0 - 8 with my oldest and 0 - 5 for my youngest, then returned to work, then faced a crisis that required me to stay home (a cancer type diagnosis in one of my kids), I regretted staying home earlier because it made finding the resources to do so later really stressful.

I also regretted that staying home early set up a dynamic where I did everything and DH provided. When that dynamic should have changed because I went back to work, it didn't and I ended up doing everything. Later, when health needs were overwhelming and it had to change, it still didn't and our family shattered.

I loved being home with my kids, and yet I wouldn't make the choice to stay home with healthy kids again, if it meant sacrificing work life balance for my DH, and/or long term savings.

For me, ages 2-5. For my kids? Not sure.

I think it depends on your family and kids. My income would have basically been child care for one child and that didn't cover all the extra hours I put in or when I got out of work late and spouse had a job that was 90 minutes away so relying on him for pick up-drop off was an issue (no fault of his). So, financially 0-5 it didn't make sense for me to work. My kid needed all kinds of therapies (plus elderly care) so my working didn't work for my family.

I think 0-5 because of child care costs and middle-high school are the best but it's really child dependent. Ours are in tons of after school activities starting in middle that are starting before 5 so it would have been an issue getting there and making it work (of course, the obvious answer would have been they don't do it) but I think they almost need you more if you don't have a 9-5 job in MS and HS and those are the years they remember. They don't remember you being home when they are little.

My mom hated being home with us and a mom so we were very much best off with a nanny or day care. I love being home so it's best for my family.

My spouse was able to increase his income enough so we could make it work and my going back income vs. benefit wasn't really worth it (and for other reasons).

But, ultimately for me it's income vs. child care costs. If you have a high income OR love your job, it may be worth working, even part time to get your hand in it, but if you don't do what is best for you. Your kids will be fine either way.