Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am currently on maternity leave with my second child and I've done the sums + I will actually be paying to go to work when I return. During term time I will just about break even, but during school holidays I will be making quite a bit less than my childcare costs.


If you were in this situation would you stay at home and look after your children yourself for a few years until they both started primary school? I asked the same question on Facebook and most of my friends seemed horrified that I was considering leaving a gaping hole in my CV. This seemed to be far more important than spending time with my children.


In my current job there are no training or progression opportunities + I've been doing the same job for over 5 years. I had always planned to completely retrain and change careers once I had two children in school. I was previously a live music events manager and I left a career a loved because it was so family un-friendly.


Does anyone have any experience of becoming a stay at home parent? Pros & cons? What are the implications of becoming a SAHP - ie pension contributions, National Insurance etc? Is it really so unacceptable to take a career break to look after young children, then retrain and start a new career? I will still have 25-30 working years ahead of me.


Thanks x

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/87062-becoming-a-sahp/
Share on other sites

I'm not a SAHP but I don't think the decision can be made only on financial grounds either way. Taking a few years out hurts your medium term earnings so from that perspective, financially, over the medium to long term you are likely to be better off working.


With that said, its entirely a personal decision. If you want to stay at home then do so regardless of what other people think or if it might be harder later when you return to work. As long as you can afford to and you accept all the implications, just do what feels right.


Equally there are lots of people that couldn't be SAHP no matter what as they'd be miserable. Its just so personal, I'm not sure anyone can actually give real advice to help anyone decide what's the right choice.

For me the key question is do you love your current job and do you want to continue doing it in the future? If the answer is yes then it's probably worth making the financial investment on childcare so that you can keep that job that you have no doubt worked so hard over the years to get to. Bear in mind sooner than you realise your children will be in school full time and you could regret having missed out on your career. However if you don't particularly enjoy your job and/or it's not something you want to continue doing in the future then it's a no brainer - stay at home and be with your children, it is very hard at times (prob harder than you realise now) but it is also the most important job u can do in your life. For me it woukd be a lot harder to be away from them doing something I don't love just so I can pay for the childcare. That I would definitively regret!

It's not unacceptable at all to do what you propose, especially as you plan to retrain. I could think of nothing worse than leaving small children at home while I went out to a job I didn't like. The preschool phase is over in the blink of an eye, if you are able to afford to be at home and enjoy your children, then do it.


I left a job I was unhappy in before I had my first child nearly 9 years ago (accountant, in the city, working in banking). I've since had 3 children and have built up a bookkeeping/accountancy business that means I can work from home. Best of both worlds, as I'm home for the kids when they get back from school but using my qualifications too.


I'm surprised your friends were so negative!


Best of luck, with whatever direction you choose.

Just wanted to add another perspective. I went back to work part time before both my children were 1 years old to a job that I 'didn't mind' - for me I really wanted to stay in a career and I also enjoyed having some of the week with adults. I didn't really earn much money but I wanted to work.


My son is now in year 1 at school and my daughter due to start Reception in 9 months, and it is only now that I have a massive pull to be a SAHP. I always thought 'it will get so much easier being a working mum when they are at school' but for me I now feel the opposite. It seems I spend so much of my money on commuting, childcare before/after school and paying other people to do the stuff I could do if I was at home (e.g. cleaner). So you could say that making a choice to become a SAHM doesn't have to necessarily be when your children are babies- it could be something you decide to do in a few years time. My kids may not be babies anymore but I feel more than ever they need my time and support (I always feel so busy with all the things they need to do like clubs and homework and being on top of all the notes that come home from school/pre-school). I also love the ages they are at now and really enjoy their company and being at home with them. I feel frazzled quite a bit having to juggle work and negotiate their school life as well as their emotional needs when they get home - if I can make the finances work in the next few years I will definitely look at trying to work for myself from home or just give up work for a while.


I just wanted to share that - if you think by going back to work now means you'll be never be a SAHP that doesn't necessarily need to be the case, it could be something you return to later on.



GOOD LUCK in whatever you decide!

What Lochie said is very true and worth bearing in mind - and by the same token, being a SAHP now needn't be forever, I did it for a bit, then after child number 2 came along I went back to work. It used to annoy me when people said I'd "given up work", I saw it more as an extended maternity leave (albeit unpaid!). It wasn't that I was never planning on working again.

I would echo belle and lochie. I have worked part time since having my first nearly 7 years ago and I find it harder than ever now (my youngest will start rec in sept) I felt very guilty leaving them as babies but they didn't have homework, school trips, forms to be handed in, after school clubs, Xmas concerts, play dates, parent workshops- the list is endless! It's a constant juggling act and schools aren't always great about giving parents notice about the next cake sale or parents evening.


Obviously only you can decide whether to be a SAHP. Perhaps looks into part time work you can do from home in the interim or training opportunities. Good luck!

I am a sahp I love it but it did take quite a bit of adjustment. I have been able to attend every single sports day, school trip, nativity etc that came up (only missed some trips recently due to having third baby) and for me, that is very important. It is hard, but this time is such a short window in their lives it is so worth it. If you do it, I would say that you need to make sure that time for you is factored in, I need to have something that isn't the children to give me a break.
I just wanted to add a comment about that 'gaping hole in your CV'; I was a SAHM for 8 years, until my youngest started reception a year ago. I actually found a job pretty easily (and probably fortuitously through a friend) in a field slightly different but related to what I used to do (I worked in regeneration/project management and have a job in transport now). I have to say now a year on that I wouldn't worry at all about that 8 year gap, I think once you get back into work, certainly in the areas I am working in, people are more interested in what you are doing now and have done recently, than in what you were doing 2/3 years ago. I also think that being at home is not 'dead-time' in terms of your own development; I have returned to work a lot more confident and relaxed about things like public speaking so please don't think you are treading water if you do decide to stay at home - I don't think that that is the case at all.

i don't think its a gaping hole as much as a risk that you have to start much lower to get back in - there is evidence that women don't recover financially after having kids due to discrimination and are still paid less even years down the track. clearly this is 'on average' and it depends on what type of work you do etc etc. i would not be willing to take the risk but then i am not planning to retrain or switch careers and so i am not sure its so relevant for you.


so i would echo previous posters that its a personal thing and you just need to do whats right for you and your family. there is no right or wrong answer and no decision is permanent, you can always change things later on. e.g. my mum took a year off to be a sahp when i was 13.


re the national insurance questions might it be worth seeing a financial advisor to look at options e.g. for impact on your pension?

It's been so long since I commented on an EDF thread but this one is close to my heart (and hello to lots of my old baby days friends on here, nice to see you!).


I identify as a SAHM although I have always done bits and bobs to keep my hand in in various ways. I'm currently doing a part-time, funded PhD plus unrelated freelance projects - which I have historically done from home and in evenings and weekends. Now I do tend to spend one day a week working from home while my husband looks after both kids (which gives us a balance we all love) and he does school run etc. I never thought this would be my plan but it's been amazing - the early days of two (plus home renovation) were very tough but other than that I have enjoyed it so much and wouldn't have had it any other way. I very much went on instinct and what felt right at each step. I have been fortunate to have opportunities to keep my hand in, but (and this is why it's a personal thing) the medium/long term financial side could never have convinced me to do things differently and if I had to choose between my 3 roles, the other 2 would have been thrown to the wolves and SAHM would have always won out. I actually retrained just before my son was born and I LOVE my field. But I wanted to be at home even more than I wanted to work in that field right now. I know I can come back to it, but even if I couldn't, for me the decision would still have been to stay at home. We haven't had loads of money and at times it's been a stretch, but we've coped and I appreciate this puts us in a lucky position too. Now with a 5.4 yo in Y1 and a 2.9yo about to start preschool I am even more glad I got to spend these years with them. They have gone by so bloody fast and like you say, there will be a good 25/30 years left to work when we are good and ready. Having said that though, I don't know if I will ever work properly full-time again, it's certainly not in my vision for the primary school years at least.


I also agree with laurac - being a SAHP has lots of those elusive transferable skills, takes great skill etc and I also find I work differently and am way more efficient now; I know the value of an uninterrupted thought and an hour to get things done!


Good luck with your decision, go with what feels truly right for both you and your family - and to those friends of yours on FB, ignore them, it's an amazing step to take if you decide it's the right one for you.

There was a good article on this in the Guardian Family section on the weekend - about a bloke who decided to be a stay at home dad. I think if you can do it and you are looking at retraining anyway then why not? You've got many working years in front of you so why not retrain and have more time with your kids and then end up doing a career you will really enjoy.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...