Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assume the following:
Two people have been together for 10+ years and have small kids
Parent wanting to SAH has a professional degree, but earnings likely would never exceed 150K
Working parent has a stable job (think equity partner at law firm) earning 2M+ annually

What is the financial risk of SAH? If they divorce the SAHP will get at least some alimony and half their shared assets earned during the marriage, which would be significant.

I understand the many reasons working is still worthwhile, but it doesn’t seem to me there’s a big financial risk, unless I’m missing something?

This is state-dependent.

But from what I hear from a good friend who is a high-value divorce attorney: one of the big risks is that people in marriages have a very hard time predicting how their spouse will behave in divorce. Even if the law is on your side, spouses often go absolutely nuclear in divorce. The net result is it can sometimes take years to get the money that a SAHM spouse is entitled to, if it is ever found at all. People move money offshore, put it into bitcoin and launder it, ask for bonuses in cash, sell property to relatives at deep discounts, etc. Anything to hide assets that can be done, is done. And they gaslight too (“I didn’t get paid for consulting, just an honarium.”).

You can sometimes uncover this if you have a good forensic accountant but you have to have the cash to hire one. You also need cash to pay an attorney.

In short there is a difference between what you are legally entitled to and what you’d ever see in a contentious divorce.

This makes sense to me.

But this would be true even if the SAHP continued working. If she’s working she has say 100K income to fall back on but still presumably takes a MAJOR lifestyle hit.

Income is not the whole ball game - there's retirement earnings, your own Social Security (despite what might happen in Congress), possibly health insurance.

If you worked prior to staying home, you could have all your social security credits in, like I do. Being married I have life long health care.

Anonymous wrote:All the SAH naysayers are out in full force! I love SAH with my kids. Nothing will make me regret this time with them. Nothing. I love every minute of being a homemaker. I also trust my DH. Wow, there’s a concept, right? I respect him and trust him and he’s awesome. We are not perfect but we are happy and committed.

The question in the OP is about the financial risks of SAH if one partner is a high earner. Responding accurately isn’t “naysaying.” You can also respond accurately with a discussion of the risks. But “I love staying home,” while a nice sentiment, doesn’t answer OPs question.

I stayed home with my older kids (now nearly adult) when they were young. I was glad for the time, and certainly don’t regret it. I worked when my youngest was a toddler so I have done both. (I don’t regret working either.) But what I can say now, at the other end, is that SAH is unquestionably a financial risk even if the partner is a high earner, unless the SAHM and working partner take concrete steps to make sure those risks are mitigated. I look around and I have seen marriages fail in spectacular fashion. These are not couples you would have thought would get divorced when we were all starting out. Life happens fast and people have all sorts of things happen: alcoholism (a serious issue), burnout, gambling addiction, teens that go off the rails and the father bolts, midlife crisis, whatever.

The PPs who talked about buying property are smart. The SAHMs in families where wealth is kept in US property have been better off financially (even when still married). Cash disappears very fast in divorce, and even not in divorce. I have seen some women get alimony and sometimes for life (important if you are 55 with no working skills) but even those with alimony face challenges. It is just much easier to offshore money these days, and these millionaire DHs are often not surprised by the divorce and so have spent a lot of time preparing for it. Jointly held properties managed by the SAHP is a smart idea. But it’s foolish to pretend there aren’t real financial risks to staying home even in a high earner marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:State mandated levels of child support are very low compared to what it really takes to raise a child. Think bare minimum in terms of food, housing, etc. Also, divorced parent is not legally obligated to pay for tutors, out of network medical care, private school or college nor, in many states, any child support beyond age 18. (Although DC mandates child support until age 21).

This is absolutely not true. The issue is the lifestyle you enjoyed being married. Usually, medical care is split or paid for by one parent and if kids are in private, if the parent can afford it, it's ordered. No one should be ordered to pay for college.

However, at that income OP would get alimony, the issue is if it is life long and 1/2 of everything except if its hidden.

If you have a scummy spouse that would hide money and cheat on you, get out now before its too late.

I am a SAH. I could see how my husband treated his ex and knew what type of person he was so I wasn't worried at all. He makes sure to max out my retirement, and got life insurance in case something happened, and has planned for us, just in case (hopefully there will never be a just in case).

The bolded makes me think you’re naive. There’s no such thing as “maxing out retirement” when you don’t have a job. He may be able to put $7k in a Roth, but only if you’re not a high wage earner and in that case, you shouldn’t be staying home. Now if you mean you save in brokerage accounts in only your name, then okay. But that’s not maxing out retirement.

Maxing out retirement is contributing the full 22,500 amount in 2023 plus any company match.

We're not eligible for a Roth. Yes, I have money in my name only. We also have good college funds and a paid-off house. Plus life insurance. I was not a high earner and hated my job,

Ok. But again, you’re not maxing out retirement. So that makes me question if the other stuff you say is actually true.

We are putting in the max allowable for retirement. How hard is it to believe we saved and planned? We live under our means and planned for the just in case. Sorry if you don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way I've seen this play out is that the high earner spouse limits the funds that the lower earning spouse has access to during the divorce, then they hire a shark and slow the process down, so it could take years for c/s and alimony to be decided and during that time the low-earner is also racking up high legal bills. Additionally, I know a number of cases where the high earner threatened to pursue full custody with their endless resources and got the low-earner to settle for less in exchange for 50/50.

I’ve seen this too. Don’t assume you would be able to get your money. Once it gets to divorce, all bets are off.

Yes, I've seen this happen a few times now. The women are shell-shocked, it's horrible. Unless I had a few millions of my own money in the bank and/or a trust fund, there is no way I'd consider staying home. But even with the $$ in place, I still have strong feelings about what I'd prefer my husband and I to model for our children. Unless I had a special needs or disabled child that made it necessary, it's just not what I would want.

I probably posted exactly this before my husband got the big promotion that brought him in the range of salary this thread is about. Now I SAH.

This thread was only made today....

True but this board wasn’t believe it or not the very topic of mothers working to model professionalism for daughters has come up before.

All the SAH naysayers are out in full force! I love SAH with my kids. Nothing will make me regret this time with them. Nothing. I love every minute of being a homemaker. I also trust my DH. Wow, there’s a concept, right? I respect him and trust him and he’s awesome. We are not perfect but we are happy and committed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way I've seen this play out is that the high earner spouse limits the funds that the lower earning spouse has access to during the divorce, then they hire a shark and slow the process down, so it could take years for c/s and alimony to be decided and during that time the low-earner is also racking up high legal bills. Additionally, I know a number of cases where the high earner threatened to pursue full custody with their endless resources and got the low-earner to settle for less in exchange for 50/50.

I’ve seen this too. Don’t assume you would be able to get your money. Once it gets to divorce, all bets are off.

Yes, I've seen this happen a few times now. The women are shell-shocked, it's horrible. Unless I had a few millions of my own money in the bank and/or a trust fund, there is no way I'd consider staying home. But even with the $$ in place, I still have strong feelings about what I'd prefer my husband and I to model for our children. Unless I had a special needs or disabled child that made it necessary, it's just not what I would want.

I probably posted exactly this before my husband got the big promotion that brought him in the range of salary this thread is about. Now I SAH.

This thread was only made today....

A friend lived a very comfortable life with her husband prior to their divorce. He planned ahead of time, hid the bulk of their money, then tied her up in court for years with divorce then custody proceedings. She's now 100k in debt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way I've seen this play out is that the high earner spouse limits the funds that the lower earning spouse has access to during the divorce, then they hire a shark and slow the process down, so it could take years for c/s and alimony to be decided and during that time the low-earner is also racking up high legal bills. Additionally, I know a number of cases where the high earner threatened to pursue full custody with their endless resources and got the low-earner to settle for less in exchange for 50/50.

I’ve seen this too. Don’t assume you would be able to get your money. Once it gets to divorce, all bets are off.

Yes, I've seen this happen a few times now. The women are shell-shocked, it's horrible. Unless I had a few millions of my own money in the bank and/or a trust fund, there is no way I'd consider staying home. But even with the $$ in place, I still have strong feelings about what I'd prefer my husband and I to model for our children. Unless I had a special needs or disabled child that made it necessary, it's just not what I would want.

I probably posted exactly this before my husband got the big promotion that brought him in the range of salary this thread is about. Now I SAH.

Exactly. It must suck if you have to work and don’t have options.

Honestly? I would say that, for me, it sorta sucks to have a husband operating at that level. We both made $200k and it was alright. Then $300k, then $400k, then $500k, and all the way, we could make it work. But when he catapulted to the next tier, it really changed QOL for two working parents. Before I quit, I asked him to consider stepping back to something we could still balance, but he really didn’t want to. These kinds of really big jobs are just so consuming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:State mandated levels of child support are very low compared to what it really takes to raise a child. Think bare minimum in terms of food, housing, etc. Also, divorced parent is not legally obligated to pay for tutors, out of network medical care, private school or college nor, in many states, any child support beyond age 18. (Although DC mandates child support until age 21).

This is absolutely not true. The issue is the lifestyle you enjoyed being married. Usually, medical care is split or paid for by one parent and if kids are in private, if the parent can afford it, it's ordered. No one should be ordered to pay for college.

However, at that income OP would get alimony, the issue is if it is life long and 1/2 of everything except if its hidden.

If you have a scummy spouse that would hide money and cheat on you, get out now before its too late.

I am a SAH. I could see how my husband treated his ex and knew what type of person he was so I wasn't worried at all. He makes sure to max out my retirement, and got life insurance in case something happened, and has planned for us, just in case (hopefully there will never be a just in case).

The bolded makes me think you’re naive. There’s no such thing as “maxing out retirement” when you don’t have a job. He may be able to put $7k in a Roth, but only if you’re not a high wage earner and in that case, you shouldn’t be staying home. Now if you mean you save in brokerage accounts in only your name, then okay. But that’s not maxing out retirement.

Maxing out retirement is contributing the full 22,500 amount in 2023 plus any company match.

We're not eligible for a Roth. Yes, I have money in my name only. We also have good college funds and a paid-off house. Plus life insurance. I was not a high earner and hated my job,

Ok. But again, you’re not maxing out retirement. So that makes me question if the other stuff you say is actually true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a bummer that what's best for the kids never enters into these discussions on this board. Everyone is so obsessed with protecting their own material comfort, and is so distrustful. I mean, honestly, why even get married and have kids if that is your attitude. Just stay single and make and keep your money if that's what you want.

It’s not good for the kids to be raised without assets watching their half siblings live in luxury because their mother didn’t get a post-nip
Before sacrificing her own earning potential.

Once again. Post nups aren’t enforceable.

Why are the in the legal code if they aren’t?

Judges can and do throw out pre-nups too, doesn’t mean they’re not enforceable it means you have to do your due diligence and work with a competent attorney.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way I've seen this play out is that the high earner spouse limits the funds that the lower earning spouse has access to during the divorce, then they hire a shark and slow the process down, so it could take years for c/s and alimony to be decided and during that time the low-earner is also racking up high legal bills. Additionally, I know a number of cases where the high earner threatened to pursue full custody with their endless resources and got the low-earner to settle for less in exchange for 50/50.

I’ve seen this too. Don’t assume you would be able to get your money. Once it gets to divorce, all bets are off.

Yes, I've seen this happen a few times now. The women are shell-shocked, it's horrible. Unless I had a few millions of my own money in the bank and/or a trust fund, there is no way I'd consider staying home. But even with the $$ in place, I still have strong feelings about what I'd prefer my husband and I to model for our children. Unless I had a special needs or disabled child that made it necessary, it's just not what I would want.

I probably posted exactly this before my husband got the big promotion that brought him in the range of salary this thread is about. Now I SAH.

Exactly. It must suck if you have to work and don’t have options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People get used to a lifestyle or opportunities for their children that they think are needs (instead of wants), and they are turn about leaving a marriage that makes them miserable. They stay with men who have betrayed/humiliated then. They feel bad asking their supposed partner for money to do things, like he is their father. The power dynamic is just off.

And why teach another generation that men are the bread winners (doctors/lawyers/professors/engineers/scientists while still getting to procreate. Whereas women (despite having brains and expensive degrees), clean, decorate the house, arrange vacations and provide child care O (even when the latter is no longer needed, because children grow up).

Hard to see how children would have equal respect for those roles.

For me the issue is not respect but presumptions concerning gendered roles. I do not want my kids to have them, period. SAHMs, do you want your girls to be SAHMs too? Or envision being doctors/lawyers/professors/engineers/scientists while "still getting to procreate" and finding fulfillment as nurturing parents as well? Since those are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not a SAHM, but I would proud if my daughter wanted to/decided to be one. Why wouldn't I be? More useful to society than most professors, and a happier lifestyle than most lawyers (I know, I am one). Why wouldn't I want her to be one if she wanted that? The key is she gets a choice.

You are both off topic for this thread.

I was responding to the comment above. Please don't go complain to the manager.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way I've seen this play out is that the high earner spouse limits the funds that the lower earning spouse has access to during the divorce, then they hire a shark and slow the process down, so it could take years for c/s and alimony to be decided and during that time the low-earner is also racking up high legal bills. Additionally, I know a number of cases where the high earner threatened to pursue full custody with their endless resources and got the low-earner to settle for less in exchange for 50/50.

I’ve seen this too. Don’t assume you would be able to get your money. Once it gets to divorce, all bets are off.

Yes, I've seen this happen a few times now. The women are shell-shocked, it's horrible. Unless I had a few millions of my own money in the bank and/or a trust fund, there is no way I'd consider staying home. But even with the $$ in place, I still have strong feelings about what I'd prefer my husband and I to model for our children. Unless I had a special needs or disabled child that made it necessary, it's just not what I would want.

I probably posted exactly this before my husband got the big promotion that brought him in the range of salary this thread is about. Now I SAH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way I've seen this play out is that the high earner spouse limits the funds that the lower earning spouse has access to during the divorce, then they hire a shark and slow the process down, so it could take years for c/s and alimony to be decided and during that time the low-earner is also racking up high legal bills. Additionally, I know a number of cases where the high earner threatened to pursue full custody with their endless resources and got the low-earner to settle for less in exchange for 50/50.

I’ve seen this too. Don’t assume you would be able to get your money. Once it gets to divorce, all bets are off.

Yes, I've seen this happen a few times now. The women are shell-shocked, it's horrible. Unless I had a few millions of my own money in the bank and/or a trust fund, there is no way I'd consider staying home. But even with the $$ in place, I still have strong feelings about what I'd prefer my husband and I to model for our children. Unless I had a special needs or disabled child that made it necessary, it's just not what I would want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People get used to a lifestyle or opportunities for their children that they think are needs (instead of wants), and they are turn about leaving a marriage that makes them miserable. They stay with men who have betrayed/humiliated then. They feel bad asking their supposed partner for money to do things, like he is their father. The power dynamic is just off.

And why teach another generation that men are the bread winners (doctors/lawyers/professors/engineers/scientists while still getting to procreate. Whereas women (despite having brains and expensive degrees), clean, decorate the house, arrange vacations and provide child care O (even when the latter is no longer needed, because children grow up).

Hard to see how children would have equal respect for those roles.

For me the issue is not respect but presumptions concerning gendered roles. I do not want my kids to have them, period. SAHMs, do you want your girls to be SAHMs too? Or envision being doctors/lawyers/professors/engineers/scientists while "still getting to procreate" and finding fulfillment as nurturing parents as well? Since those are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not a SAHM, but I would proud if my daughter wanted to/decided to be one. Why wouldn't I be? More useful to society than most professors, and a happier lifestyle than most lawyers (I know, I am one). Why wouldn't I want her to be one if she wanted that? The key is she gets a choice.

You are both off topic for this thread.