Retiring is still SAH.

The idea of any of these decisions Should be to bring reduced stress to the family as a whole. Some do, but I don’t think most couples /families survive on 50/50 on everything, at every moment.

I don’t think you’ve answered, OP, but is this his child or stepchild? Was it a child you “negotiated” for? (I fully accept that that’s an awful question, but I do know couples that have negotiated for children, and if you said you’d do all the work, then unfortunately, it’s on you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Retirement is different from SAH.

You should let him really retire. It's not fair otherwise.

Nope. You don't get to "retire" from you parental responsibilities. If you don't want to be parenting a child when you hit retirement age, don't have a baby 11 years before you are due to retire. Duh.

This.

I think this happens a lot with SAHMs when the spouse retires. The labor division in the house was so unequal before they retired that it just gets worse once the man retires. I've seen quite a few elderly men being catered to on hand and foot by their spouse. I mean did the wives really expect for their DH to suddenly learn how to scrub a bathroom, cook or do laundry once they retired? Yours is just compounded because you have young kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Retirement is different from SAH.

You should let him really retire. It's not fair otherwise.

And if op decides to “really retire”? Should the kid just farm himself out to another family?

OP said she is 10 years younger than her DH. When she retires, kid will be 21.

It was her poor choice to have a kid late in life with a guy 10 years away from retirement.

She made her bed.

He made his bed when he decided to have a kid at 50.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Retirement is different from SAH.

You should let him really retire. It's not fair otherwise.

And if op decides to “really retire”? Should the kid just farm himself out to another family?

OP said she is 10 years younger than her DH. When she retires, kid will be 21.

It was her poor choice to have a kid late in life with a guy 10 years away from retirement.

She made her bed.

eh, some people might appreciate having an adult presence in the house when their kid gets to be tween/teen age. Unless Op's husband has always been a major jerk and a grand shirker of responsibility, of course he will be there to care for his child.

I think the only fair thing would be to make him responsible for all pick up/drop offs and meal prep unless he needs a day off to go play golf or whatever.

If a woman was retiring and saying that she wanted to sleep in and play all day while her working spouse dealt with child pick up/drop offs, sick kid days, grocery shopping, meal prep and other household duties, you know darned well that would not fly.

Ditch the part time housekeeper and hire a driver for school runs instead. I can't imagine a family of three including a child in full day school more than capable of managing his own clean up really needs a housekeeper.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Retirement is different from SAH.

You should let him really retire. It's not fair otherwise.

And if op decides to “really retire”? Should the kid just farm himself out to another family?

OP said she is 10 years younger than her DH. When she retires, kid will be 21.

It was her poor choice to have a kid late in life with a guy 10 years away from retirement.

She made her bed.

I think there’s a compromise position in which he does more pickups/drop offs and makes dinner some/most nights. I wouldn’t go into it insisting on “all.” You’re both the parents.

That said my dh would be helpful in this situation so I’d have faith it would work out. If you don’t have that confidence it could be bad. It takes a year or more for most people to adjust to retirement.

Is the child biologically his? I knew a couple that was almost in this exact situation, except the wife didn't work shift work. The child was not biologically his, she was a late in life single mother by choice who later married a man 10-15 years older.

I assumed that his age (very late 60s) and lack of a bio tie to the kid colored his attitude towards the situation.

Anonymous wrote:Retirement is different from SAH.

You should let him really retire. It's not fair otherwise.

Nope. You don't get to "retire" from you parental responsibilities. If you don't want to be parenting a child when you hit retirement age, don't have a baby 11 years before you are due to retire. Duh.

Anonymous wrote:Retirement is different from SAH.

You should let him really retire. It's not fair otherwise.

So if OP “retires” also, the 11 yo will have to fend for himself because no one is going to take him to and from school?

Anonymous wrote:Retirement is different from SAH.

You should let him really retire. It's not fair otherwise.

And if op decides to “really retire”? Should the kid just farm himself out to another family?

Retirement is different from SAH.

You should let him really retire. It's not fair otherwise.

Yeah, the DH in this scenario still has a minor child, and doesn't get to 'retire' from those responsibilities. I assume he is a younger retiree-the child will be driving possibly in 5 or 6 years and won't need rides so much. Dh has to parent even though he is retired!

00:27 PP, did you miss the part where the wife works 30 hr shifts?