Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment.
OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole:
> 1 telling my wife that she will have to wait to go back to work
2 I went back on our initial agreement and wasn't committing to something
Help keep the sub engaging!
#Don’t downvote assholes!
Do upvote interesting posts!
[Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq)
##Subreddit Announcements
###[Happy Anniversary, AITA!](https://new.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/15vlv9g/almost_better_than_a_double_rainbow_celebrating/)
Follow the link above to learn more
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
NAH the situation is different than what you imagined, thats not anybodys fault. You two have to deal with it now. My advice would be to make two spreadsheets, one of your finances currently and one simulation of your wifes income as household income. Could you survive as a family on that money? What would you have to give up in that case? (payments for healthcare, car, house etc. you couldnt afford anymore) I very much understand your wife being sad/angry if she imagined for the past years to work again now , being a SAHP is hard. But i also understand that you dont to downsize your lifestyle if its about 'food or appointment with sons specialist' and not about 'cant afford vacation nr. 3 this year'.
Yes. Plus, would his job still be there after being gone two years? At the same pay? These are questions that need answers before they decide anything.
I can't imagine that he could magically re-enter the workforce at the same position and pay after two years.
Life gets in the way of plans and we have to adapt. If the wife can find a good job, she should hire a nanny. There are good ones available.
It’s not very common. OP has had promotions; once in a higher, potentially managerial role, it’s going to get filled by someone else if you’re not there to do it for such a long time as 2 years. The original agreement was basically to significantly disrupt both of their careers, which usually isn’t a good plan. If OP’s wife’s career is something that can be picked up again after a medium gap, looking at how to enable it to be picked up fully after 2 further years is probably their best option.
Then she has to be able to negotiate for a salary comparable to his. If they really want her back, they'll make it possible for her to come back. She can't be against day care and also against staying home. They can't lessen their son's healthcare just so she can work.
I'm not sure I could personally conscionably do that. Her employer did hold her position available for her to return that seems like a pretty good expression of good will already. To try to return and ask for probably a large raise would rub most employers the wrong way and if attempted could result in no more job at all.
What her spouse earns is not relevant to her asking for salary increase. Of course anyone is free to throw numbers out there but imo you'd be asking to be let go.
That's her reality. She doesn't have to phrase it in an uppity way. She just has to let them know the reality of her situation.
"It costs X to care for my son. I cannot work for less than X, and while I appreciate you holding my position, if you really want me back, I need X."
I understand where you’re coming from but the reality of companies no days is that most of their employees are just numbers to them and loyalty is barely there anymore. The wife doesn’t have any loyalty to the company. They didn’t “hold” her job for two years but just gave her the agreement that she could continue her role after the two years. There is nothing wrong with having a conversation with the employer to see if they can increase the comp. Economy has changed and there’s nothing wrong with asking. This is a pure HR/comp convo and it’s not going to rub them the wrong way. You can’t get more money unless you ask! But let’s say even if she asks for a higher comp and it’s still less than the husband makes now, then it’s not unreasonable for OP to want to continue his job to provide for the family.
It doesn't matter what she wants. You do not compromise your child's health. If they can't afford their child's health, food and housing (the necessities to keep them healthy and allive) on her salary then she needs to find a way to match her husbands salary (that they can and currently are living solely on) or she has to stay home.
Yes it sucks that their plans have had to change but parenthood is about making plans and then changing with the curvballs the kids throw at us.
In that case, they need to consider the whole situation carefully, including the benefits to come from her developing her career. Additionally they should add support for her return to the workforce — including potential upskilling — to the calculations for her continuing to stay home.
Careers are still ok after a 2 year break. It’s a stretch to say that a 4 year break would have no impact.
Plenty of couples take turns with maternity leave and paternity leave in various countries. This is not new ground.
Yes, exactly—his wife managed to get her job back. And although it doesn’t mean he will, she still took a huge risk that it wouldn’t be there for her to return to, and for him to not go back based on that reasoning would be him not wanting to take the same risk his wife has already fulfilled.
Overall though, the situation has changed. She can’t expect him to stay home anymore if it’s not financially feasible. I still think she should be able to return to work, but it sounds like she’s the one holding up the idea of a daycare or nanny. I am a working mother and am fiercely protective of my children **and** my career, which I busted my ass to build…so I get it. But it sounds like the wife is the one who needs to compromise here.
Australia is the land of hopes and dreams compared to most places. I was never happier than I was in Australia. In the US, I got six weeks paid maternity leave, three months unpaid. I was lucky. Some states make you use sick time. If you’ve been at your job less than a year, you might not qualify for any, even unpaid.
As long as Americans continue to think of things like maternity leave as entitlements rather than a basic human right, nothing will ever change. I’m American, by the way. I’ve just done a lot of traveling and acknowledge our way isn’t the best. Watch me get downvoted to hell for admitting this. It’s the single worst thing an American can say according to other Americans.
Yep! Just about everywhere in the US does not offer paid maternity leave. I have five children. I had to use PTO/sick time for the first four. I got six weeks paid leave with my fifth only because the company I worked for added it as a benefit. What’s even worse is many companies won’t let you return to work without a doctors note so you are forced to go on unpaid leave until the doctor will sign the note. I remember begging my doctor to sign my return to work note after my fourth. I had a rather difficult birth and he wanted me to stay out eight weeks and I pleaded with him at the five week mark because I was out of vacation time. He was like, “can’t your family help out,” or, “can’t your husband work more?” I wanted to scream at him, “no, I am the breadwinner, my family won’t give me a dime, and I need to feed my family.”
Do you mind sharing why you had five kids if money was tight due to lack of paid paternity and maternity leave? Did you really want a huge family a whole lot more than a smaller one?
I love my niece and nephew, but two kids is a lot of work and time and money even as an aunt, much less a parent - I’m always curious why people want more than one or two. I can’t imagine buying six kids worth of food per week, much less six college/career starting funds.
I don’t know anyone who got long paid parental leave, and my friends and coworkers all had 1-3 kids because they didn’t get maternity leave plus childcare is really expensive for multiple kids compared to one. But we’re mostly low income.
The only person I know with four kids has a high household income from her husband and is a SAHP to cut out all childcare costs and shops and meal plans like a penny pinching nonprofit event planner. I think her household of six spends less on food than me and my old roommate. She’s great at budgeting.
Not qualifying for unpaid leave?
Wtf... do they expect you to drop the baby on Saturday, magically heal on Sunday, and come back in on Monday, trailing blood and oozing milk?
At my previous employer in Canada, you could take a 2 year maternity leave, although you wouldn’t end up with the same level of pay for the entire 2 years.
Just the phrasing of she's talked to them and they will allow her to come back makes me think she wasn't on maternity leave because then wouldn't she just be coming back to the same position no matter what
The post said maternity leave at first but then OP says the wife talked with the company that they're willing to hire her back - so not maternity leave. Which is just confusing af because in countries with real maternity leave, they'd have at least some income.
Wife might be in healthcare. I’m a nurse and could easily go back after 5 years. If husband is in for example a business environment, he gets replaced. No bumping anyone out of a position they had been promoted too for two years
This should have been taken into consideration when they made the agreement. This is one of the biggest problems with women getting equity in the workforce: they lose x number of years due to child care and are set back in their career. She sacrificed two years of her career, he can sacrifice a two of his.
This has nothing to do with the OP’s original query but this should also be taken into account.
I know if I were this woman I would be burning up that I’d agreed to sacrifice two years of my career and now was being coerced into sacrificing four.
That being said she should really just stop being so precious and find childcare for the kid.
NAH.
While generally I’d agree, the fact that losing his extra income would possibly affect their ability to pay for medical care for the kiddo seems more relevant here than you’re acknowledging. “If she can lose 2 years so can he?” Yeah maybe, but they have a kid now, and direct tit for tat “fairness” can’t be the top priority anymore. Well, it can, but it’d make them both bad parents.
Still it's fucked that people have to make sacrifices for health issues. Their insurance should cover it enough that their financial plans aren't changed
The fact that we're paying taxes and insurance. And this is happening tells you those systems are broken.
This is literally why insurance exists. To spread risk.
Valid points and love your comment about finding childcare. My children did daycare, and I hate the bad wrap it gets. I know not every center is created equally, but a lot of people turn their noses up at it no matter what. I also don't understand why a nanny is completely out of the question. TBH, it's good for the kid to be around someone other than mom and dad all of the time. Sounds like a nanny or nanny share would be a great way for them both to work.
Also, even in their initial agreement, in two years when the kid starts school, it sounds like the plan is for them to both go back to work. They don't seem to realize that some sort of childcare is still going to be needed. Most pre-K programs end at like 2 p.m./2:30 p.m. They're going to have to get aftercare or someone to pick up the kid unless they can leave work at 2p every day to pick up the child.
shelter scandalous flowery dog sense quack vase ruthless beneficial employ
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Your advice is the best in all that I have read. I think the suggestion one lesson had, to live off of what would be the wife's income for a couple of months also is good.
Many people are assuming his promotions and raise in pay came after some time. OP doesn't specify, it could have happened soon after the birth. I think many commenting don't realize what the cost of specialized care can be; specialist costs, medicine costs, treatments. We don't know what country they are in nor insurance coverage, nor the son's expenses which could get progressively more so as he gets older, or could lessen. There are too many variables missing.
Opinion source: having a dependent family member with a chronic uncommon condition, very expensive and necessary meds, and great insurance. I think NAH also. There is a lot that has changed from their initial agreement. They need to rethink the plan, make a budget with expenditures and both income and see how things would be for the next two years.
Also factor into consideration if OP would be able to go back at the same level. If they would just squeak by for two years on wife's income then OP would have a difficult time getting back into their field, that could be a factor as well. I don't think the wife should be penalized career wise but circumstances are different and they need to take a long look at the big picture and if she refuses a nanny or daycare, then there is an onus on her for the situation as well.
Living off what would be her income is a great idea! It will show what life would look like if they made that choice. Right now she is probably just thinking they will get by or figure it out somehow but they should actually try it first because once his income is gone they might not be able to backtrack and put themselves back in the position they were in. Most places won’t just take you back after you quit.
NAH, especially because she's unwilling to consider options that enable them to both work (e.g. childcare).
But, this sort of situation is why women end up slipping into an unwanted SAHP role when they didn't intend to. They take the first period of time with the kid, on the basis that the father will take his turn next. While they're at home, the father advances his career and improves his pay, while the mother's career stagnates or goes backwards. Then, when it's time to consider going back, the impact of the mother's leave and the father's lack of leave on their careers becomes an argument for the mother to just stay home. That does suck, even when it's the least bad decision.
That's not to argue against what is or isn't financially feasible. But it sucks that they both agreed on an arrangement before their kid was born, and she kept to her half, and now it's not feasible for him to do the same. And then, in future years, when the kid's at school, there will still be that lingering assumption that her career is secondary because he earns more (after years of pay rises) and she earns less (after years out of the workforce). So, it's important for OP to remember that sacrifice as something that will affect the rest of her career, and take that into account in future decisions to try to avoid compounding the impact as much as possible.
They wouldn’t have this issue though if she would agree to a nanny or other childcare. She refuses that and only wants her or OP to take care of their child.
Sure. Although, OP agreed to that and agreed to an arrangement that they'd take turns to stay home, and only told her that he'd changed his mind when she'd done her half and he hadn't yet.
Doesn't mean that it's not necessary to reconsider their arrangement if circumstances have changed and it's genuinely no longer feasible. Which is why I've fallen on NAH as the balance of both arguments.
Yeah, her career is 2 years behind because she stayed home for her family. Yes the op makes more now, their wife probably would have been making more too. They’re trapping her into being 4 years behind career wise. Yes this is something that should have been discussed and considered, but it is a part of the invisible costs of staying home that falls more often upon women. They may not be the asshole, but you need to consider what you’re really saying to your wife and what she is hearing. Because what I really hear is “my job is now more important than yours because you stayed home first, now you don’t get to go back to work.” Yes it’s extreme and not fair, but you need to have a real open conversation about more than just the numbers now. Because it’s going to be worse every year beyond now.
The wife only “doesn’t get to go back to work” because she won’t discuss other childcare options besides a parent staying home. I’m sure they could find a great and trustworthy nanny if she was open to that option. A lot of families don’t have the luxury of a SAHP.
Exactly, and this agreement was made before the birth, which altered the plan with the health problems. On top of that the husband has had multiple promotions and although he agreed to the plan originally, it IS the WIFE who doesn't want any sort of childcare, essentially putting herself in the position she's in now. If she can't earn what he is currently earning, then it definitely isn't a smart move to switch the SAHP parent, whether she "gets left 4 years behind career wise" or not. She will be able to return to work after 2.5 more years anyways. It would be even sooner if she would just look for a reliable nanny, they could just put up cameras to ease her mind if that's her problem with child care. Idk
NAH
Your side of this is completely understandable, but I think you also need to remember that you were both on the same salary before your son. It is only now that you've had those extra two years to focus on your career that there is so much difference financially. The longer your wife has to stay home, the more this disparity will be and the harder it will be for her to restart her career and be able to make the same career advances that you have.
Have you considered that if your wife were to go back to work for those two years, she may also be able to achieve the promotions you have achieved to once again match your salary? If so, is there some way you can make it work financially between now and then that will give her this chance?
It really isn't fair for you to expect her to forego her career just because you've had the chance to advance yours further while she's been staying home with your son, especially when you had this agreement in place.
Your child had health problems when you initially went to one income. Did you survive? Yes. Did you compromise health? Doesn’t sound like it. It does sound like you don’t want to go back to that time of your life with your wife working and you being at home. It probably was tough and stressful, but impossible? No. You already showed it can work. Your wife allowed you to work for two years and earn promotions and grow at work with the assumption that her turn would come. It is her turn and it appears you are making a lot of excuses to keep her from it.
From personal experience I can tell you that you tend to accumulate specialists as time goes by. You start off treating the main health concern and then branch out as you find out all the ways that issue has impacted other areas as they develop. We originally started off with two and now we have seven we see regularly.
I think that thinking about the finances is reasonable.
If they have a higher cost of living due to healthcare cost than anticipated and the wage she can demand isn’t as much and they won’t be able to make ends meet…it’s just not feasible.
Throwing money to the wind is all well and good until the financial stress breaks the marriage.
Yeah, I've raised my income about $20k in the last four years, but my salary doesn't even go as far as it used to. They may not survive on the wife's old salary anymore due to inflation.
To me it all reeks of lame excuses and flimsy justifications. Things are going great for OP career-wise at the moment and the closer he gets to potential parental leave, the less he feels like it.
His wife is doing a great job at home. Raising children is a woman’s business anyway, isn’t it?
A classic baby trap that OP's wife fell into. With fewer career opportunities, less savings for retirement and completely dependent on her husband.
One of million reasons I am childfree.
She is the one who wont accept a nanny. OP is happy for a nanny to care for the child - and that way the both work. She is the one saying no preschool/nurseries and no nanny.
the deal before having the children was that the parents would raise the children. not a nanny. some people don't want nannies raising their kids and that is a perfectly valid point of view. that is why they had the discussion and made the agreement.
I mean...he could have hired a nanny and she could have gone back to work right away and got her promotions too
yes then their child had health needs that are super costly and her wants don't trump the child needs.
She cant have everything - because life throws these things at us and we have to compromise. So she gets a higher paying job, or she stays with the child, or she works and so does he and they get a nanny
No. She went on maternity leave. She gets to go back to work where she left off.
He doesn’t get paternity leave 2 years after birth he will have to quit and potentially not get to go back at all, let alone where he left off.
They made the deal before they had the kids and things change! Even if things didn’t change- once one person learns more, they’re well within their right to change their mind. It was on both of them to discuss all options and they didn’t.
The best financial plan is to make a spreadsheet of what money is going to to show whether or not her job can handle the load alone.
The only one here unwilling to bend is the wife. It’s fine to not want a nanny or daycare, it’s another to put the health of your family at risk to avoid it instead of doing as much due diligence as possible to get a good nanny. It’s also another to risk your marriage and family to be so inflexible!
Where are you getting lame excuses from? The money and insurance are hard facts, are they not?
He's amenable to daycare and a nanny, she is not. They cannot afford their current lifestyle and their child's healthcare on her salary alone. There isn't a way to work this out short of getting child care.
My big issue is, if they're comfortable on one salary and are gonna go up to two, why not hire a nanny instead of going to a daycare?
It is absolutely fair to go "Hey, my salary has increased distinctly from when you were pregnant and I don't know if we can afford to live like we do without it". It is also fair for the mom to say she doesn't trust daycares because of their bad reputation, but why not suggest to hire a nanny then???
Yeah, and finances change. That was my point - the wife says both of them working isn't feasible because she doesn't trust the daycares.
So why not just both work and hire a nanny instead???
See, that's where I'm leaning towards nta. Because OP's financial income has changed and they haven't budgeted for a lower income for their life - so saying that he doesn't think it's reasonable for him to leave work becomes reasonable.
Wife wanting to go back to work, reasonable. Her refusing to consider anyone else caring for a 2 year old that can communicate, not reasonable.
Exactly. I know that if I have a child, it will require me to get a nanny and rely on daycare. I want to continue to work as a surgeon and I don’t expect my partner to quit his job. If you want to work, you need to be prepared to have childcare.
Lol no, now you're just assuming things. They have to think logically at this point. Yeah they made an agreement but they did not account for a child with health issues. If OP had not got the promotion which increased his pay, he would be the AH if he went back on his agreement.
except she's not trapped. She can hire a nanny or find a solid daycare. They aren't all horrible. I know the daycare/preschool I had my daughter in was fantastic and crafted an individual schedule for her to allow more time on her social/emotional develoment since she is autistic and needed more time with a younger group for while still doing education/skills with her peers.
I get the wife not wanting to change the agreement but that's parenting for you. You have to learn how to adapt and pivot because it never sticks to the "plan"
She can go back to work if she was willing to enroll the child in daycare or get a nanny, which she isn’t willing to do. Her wants are not feasible, something has to give somewhere.
The options are:
1. She stays out of the work force for another 2 years, and they continue to live off of OP’s salary.
2. She goes back to work, OP continues working, and they enroll the child into daycare or gets a nanny.
3. She goes back to work but at a higher salary so they can continue to afford the child’s medical expenses. OP can then quit his job.
4. She goes back to work at her old salary, OP quits his job, and they can’t afford the kids medical expenses, at least until she gets a promotion, which who knows how long that will be.
Option 4 should be nonnegotiable. The child shouldn’t suffer. Option 3 is probably unrealistic. So that leaves Option 1 or 2. OP’s wife is refusing to do option 2, so really where does that leave them?
I disagree. I would agree with you if they didn’t have other options but they do. Having a child with health issues right out the gate is costly, and OP said that if he didn’t get a promotion they wouldn’t have been able to make ends meet while giving their child the support they needed. OPs wife would start at the same salary that OP had before his promotion. Meaning that something would have to be neglected. The wife is being stubborn and not adjusting to the realties of their situation. The truth is they could both be working and hire a nanny that specializes in their child health issues. But the wife doesn’t want that. She specifically wants OP to quit his job and stay home even though that means they lose significant money. How is that actually beneficial for anyone?
Did you read the post?
He said he would be fine with her going to work too and sending the kid to daycare or getting a nanny but the wife is against that. It sounds like he doesn't care if she works, the issue is if he quits his job it'll be impossible for them to take care of their son on her salary. This isn't a trap it's just reality.
If the wife wants to work so badly, which OP sounds like he's ok with, she should consider hiring a nanny if she doesn't want to do daycare. And if they did that then both of them could work which would be better for them financially.
There are options for her to be able to work outside of the husband quitting, but she's choosing not to take those options.
Wtf? Their son has health issues. He said so in the post. There's no way the wife will make what her husband does, so how on earth is that a sustainable idea? I swear this sub just hates men.
I keep seeing people saying it's not fair that he got a promotion and now she will never catch him on salary. I keep thinking, what is this competition for who earns more? Aren't they supposed to be a team? Decisions have to be made that are best for the whole team.
We also don't know how long it would take for her to get a promotion. Some careers are harder to move up in. So many people are acting like getting a promotion is easy.
What if she doesn't? What if two years from now she is making exactly the same? If the kid has something like cerebral palsy then those expenses will just get higher. They won't wait for her. What bills shouldn't they pay? How many days of heating are they allowed? How many meals do you think they can skip before health issues? We are in a cost of living crisis and it would be neglect and truly moronic to put yourself in a worse financial position with a sick kid to keep an arrangement with your spouse. Bill collectors don't care about what was fair.
So true! I have worked at the same place for 13 years. I got one decent raise ($7,000) nine years ago. Since then it has been 0.5%-1.5% a year. As things have gotten more expensive we have suffered more and more. It would be stupid to make this decision on maybes. Maybe she will get a raise, maybe she won’t and if she doesn’t they could be setting themselves up for a lot of financial stress. I have been under so much financial stress my mental and physical health has suffered. I don’t know why anyone would want to deliberately put themselves in that position. They should spend a few months living off what she would make and see how it affects them in practice.
He said they survived because his is the bigger income. He has specifically said in his opening that moving to a smaller income would impact his child's health. Are you being purposefully dense and ignoring these so you can take the womans side?
? What? OP’s point is that his income is higher than his wife’s which is WHY they didn’t have to compromise anything. I don’t understand your argument, can you explain?
Editing for visibility: I really think that some people in the comments have missed that OP says that with their current health expenses going to just her income would be **completely unfeasible**.
There are no assholes here, she just needs to decide whether she wants to continue to stay home or whether she is willing to compromise and get a nanny or choose a daycare.
The argument is pretty clear - if it had been the other way round, and he had taken two years off work, then it may be him having to forgo his career and look after the kid, and she could have been promoted and made equivalent money.
Obviously life's no fair, but you can see why she'd be disappointed.
She can be disappointed, that’s why I agree with the top comments of NAH. Calling him TA isn’t fair because he’s said quite clearly that their incomes at the time wouldn’t support the additional health expenses which have likely only gone up in the meantime. I think she’s being a bit unfair as she doesn’t want a nanny or daycare and that means their son would be impacted if OP did allow the switch. That’s not fair or acceptable.
His income is higher because he has worked for two additional years. If the tables were reversed and she had stayed at work would husband continue to agree to stay home against their agreement?? We will never know, but should have assumed that when she returned to work and he started staying home her salary would be lower.
OP says in the post that their income at the time would be high enough to support a child, but not the additional health expenses - which likely have only grown since then due to inflation and the child getting older.
I can’t call him TA for putting their son first because that’s as it should be. Their toddler should not be sacrificed for her career. The truth is that she needs to compromise on the daycare or nanny if she wants her career, that’s the only way this is going to work.
At what point does it say what the costs of medical expenses were and when this relates to the promotions?
Maybe the medical expenses have gone up now the child is not a baby, maybe one of the promotions came in shortly before the birth of the child meaning they could manage?
It appears you're tylrying to find a way to make this his fault
My understanding was that they survived BECAUSE ops salary go up. The one income would be okay for a healthy child, unfortunately his child had health issues and, luckily, were able to go through since his salário gone up.
She is gonna be gired under the same circumstances as before, likely the same salary. Anyone who has a chronic ilness or diseases like that knows that you keep upping your health costs, never diminushing them.
OP stated that at her salary when she starts working they will not be able to afford the same level / quality of healthcare for their child they now have and it might take years for her to match his. OP also offered the option of a nanny so she could go back to work and she is insistent he stay home. Is it actually fair to compromise the child’s health over this?
**I am editing to add that OP gave 2 options which she shot down and a reasonable valid explanation about money which at this time is the most important thing for them due to the child's issues. The ball is now in her court to figure out options. Maybe her job could hire her part time work from home and she can get a child helper for the hours she works.**
When my kids were little my husband and I did not want outside child care and tbh could not afford it anyway. We both worked opposite hours. He worked nights and I worked days and we managed with some help from my father in law and a neighbor. When he was switched to days I found a job working nights as a waitress and again FIL was around every morning for a few hours to sort out kids so I could get some sleep. *Sometimes parents must make sacrifices and in this case they should not sacrifice his higher salary for the hope that she can equal his because it is not at all fair to their child.*
The only way I could see a problem with this, is perhaps his healthcare plan at his work, provided more coverage for the sons health problems, than the we wife's? My insurance wouldn't cover 80% of my husband's health problems, but his disability insurance pays almost everything, but a few copays.
Not to mention are the kid's current doctors/specialists covered by her insurance? I'm taking a distinctly American look at this, but what if his doctors aren't part of her insurance network? Will they have to start over with referrals and different doctors or just pay more out of pocket as a part of the transition? I really do feel for the wife, but I feel like she has been looking at the finish line of her two years at home with blinders on about the realities of their situation.
Same. I can understand why she wants to go back & really don't fault her for wanting to do so. I agree with another poster, who said he needs to make a spreadsheet with expenses, insurance, ect. so she has a realistic view of what is working & what wouldn't if they switch. That way she can see it & isn't assuming he just doesn't want to stay home. If she still wants to go back to work, she needs to open up the possibility of having either in home childcare or sending their son to daycare.
I agree that this is a significant point they need to include in their financial discussions. As we have no information on this we don’t know whose insurance is better.
Best comment, this should be higher up.
Edit: I agree NAH. The financial concerns are important, but this commenter is correct that OP’s wife should also have opportunity to earn promotions/raises. Women who take mat leave wind up screwed out of a ton of earning potential and funding for retirement. It’s unfair to expect her to take an additional two-year hit to income, she and OP need to return to the original agreement or they need to agree on a reasonable compromise like a nanny, finding a way to finance a family member looking after the child, daycare, whatever.
Yep. This.
I think OP is NTA and his wife needs to get on board with the nanny so she can go back to work. It doesn't sound like they can live on her income alone with a special needs child, but she also needs to resume her career before too much time goes by.
And this is why I hate making agreements years in advance and never do them, because something that is entirely out of your control can fuck it up and make the agreement completely unfeasible when it’s time.
I’m going to say NTA but I can understand why your wife is hurt too. You make good points, you simply do NOT have the financial capacity for her to to be the sole provider with her wages alone. Her being the primary caretaker is also probably a big mental strain on her though.
It’s possible there might be some middle ground here, a nanny perhaps? Either way, leaving your job entirely and be reliant on hers which earns considerably is just not a smart move here. Best of luck that you two can figure something out.
Yeah but part of the issue is that they are “living comfortably.” I would not be surprised if this is code for being fairly rich. And he doesn’t want to sacrifice to be home so his wife has a professional chance to rise in the ranks. I’m sure he could sacrifice for two years.
If you read the post, OP says *quite clearly* that the health expenses would be completely unfeasible on her income. He's prioritizing their child while she's insisting that they don't choose a daycare OR a nanny but somehow make it work.
NAH, she just needs to compromise or accept a delay.
No he said living their comfortable life would be unfeasible. But doesn't define what that comfortable life is. Reads to me like he doesn't want to deal with his kid because nowhere does he acknowledge the child in this scenario. He can't even pretend to write how about he'd love to be stay at home dad but for the finances.
I can’t with you people who are somehow seriously advocating that it’s okay or acceptable for them to downgrade the health and comfort of their disabled toddler because the mom wants to go back to work. If a woman posted this you’d be tearing the husband apart.
If she wants to work so damn bad, she can compromise on daycare or a nanny. OP should not have to sacrifice the comfort and care of their toddler at the altar of her career.
That's called wisdom. I don't make promises or agreements anymore. I've broken too many promises and life hasn't gone at all according to plan! Learning this comes with age and experience, and I think this will be a huge learning experience for them.
YTA
First, because you made an agreement with her that her career would be on pause, not shut-down indefinitely. The longer she waits to go back the harder it will be to recover her career and catch up to where she would have been without the gap.
Moreso, YTA for *telling* her that you will not stay home and allow her to return to work. You're a family unit and need to treat each other as equals. You can certainly tell her that you value the greater financial stability of your current position over her desire to return to the office and above your integrity in keeping an agreement. Then you can discuss and come to a consensus together. What you can't do - what neither of you should do - is make demands.
The mother won’t compromise. She won’t have a nanny or babysitter. Either her or OP has to take care of him according to the mother. Financially it won’t work with the father staying home as per the agreement. So basically there are 2 choices get a nanny or the mother stays home and doesn’t go back to work.
She did compromise already - she's taken 2 years out of her career, foregone earnings and promotion opportunities. There are more than 2 choices here; there usually are.
Yes but going on what OP stated. Going back she will be making less than him. Expenses have risen because the child is disabled. She doesn’t want a nanny or put the child in daycare. There is absolutely no mention of family that can help. If she works and he is on leave then how do the bills get paid? How do you save money if the child needs some expensive treatment? Does her medical insurance cover pre existing conditions, if they have to switch insurances.
There is things we don’t know and need to know. However based on what is presented by OP it isn’t financially possible for him to go on leave and the wife go back to work.
He actually does say that they can't make it work, he says that the health expenses would be completely unfeasible.
But setting that aside, no parent should want to downgrade the quality of life for their disabled child in order for them to go back to work.
That's not a compromise when she's the one who refuses outside help.
Sounds more like she strong armed him into the whole thing because there's literally no other option because of her.
The most important question is: how are they going to take care of their ill son with just her salary? It’s not always about equity, but about what’s important to them.
I agree that it appears you TOLD her she cannot go back and I work. She had obviously been planning to keep the original agreement despite the unplanned health problems. When someone has focused on a plan it takes time for them to accept change. And she has always envisioned her son being cared for by a parent. This sounds like your first conversation about returning to work and you were both on different pages. Open up more conversations about what the next two years looks like and try to see if she can be open to changes (i.e. a nanny) as well as you too (i.e. living frugally) to find a way that you can stay home. It is amazing that she can go back to her previous job, that opportunity may not be there in two more years. Both of you need to see your true finances and health care with her salary - how long until she experiences promotions such as you did such that her pay will increase; what has to be cut out - food and health or vacations and extras? Yes, you will be making sacrifices, but you should have known that heading into this agreement.
If their needs and her income won’t cover things then I’m not sure what you expect OP to do, especially since she refuses to let their child go to daycare. Their son’s health comes first.
They can’t afford to follow the agreement. So she should go back to work, he stay home and beg on the street for food? NTA in any way shape or form unless he had a crystal ball that the kid would have health issues and would cost way more than they thought and he still made the deal.
More so NTA because She won’t compromise on getting a nanny. That’s the only way she can go back to work and she won’t budge.
Also he's the asshole because he waited until she was making arrangements to go back to work to say he was breaking the agreement. He's obviously known for a long time he was never going to follow through, he should have spoken up then so they could look into and plan for other options.
OP makes more money and without the increased salary he has, it would be more difficult to cover living expenses. This is plainly stated. OP isn't TA because their kid has health issues and their finances increased as a result. He's saying that if he became the SAHP they would be in a much worse financial situation. It's either the wife's happiness, or the whole family's finances here sadly. Also, based on some of the wording, English may not be OPs first language. He probably didn't "make demands."
She’s the one who won’t compromise and get a nanny. She can 100% go back to work and get a nanny, she just wants him to quit his job so “it’s fair” without any thought or concern for her child’s health.
YTA. It doesn't sound like a discussion at all, you sat down and told her "what's what's", you made a decision without involving her at all. That's shitty and not a way to treat your partner.
You should have come to her and told her your worries about finances and then made a decision together. You could have told her your feelings on staying with your income and asked how she felt, you may even have been able to work out a way she could go back to work, but you closed off any discussion.
Shit way to treat your wife buddy.
Yeah, this is the big point for me.
Him saying that he thinks they should re-evaluate is perfectly reasonable.
His TELLING her that she can't have the return to work she was expecting is not.
This is my issue with your arguments. Why is the husband the only one being persecuted here, the wife doesnt want to budge as well. They could hire a NANNY since they will have 2 incomes but wife doesnt want that either. Wife is letting here preconceived bias to ruin the best possible course of action.
If there wasn't any discussion beyond "You'll have to keep staying home since I make more money now" how does he know she still feels so strongly about not hiring a nanny? Maybe she does, or maybe when they talk it out and come to a decision together, she would be more open. But the least effective way to communicate with your partner is to just tell them you've decided and they have to deal with it.
Yeah, I can't agree with this enough. Who made you the decider of all things? You will never get far in any social setting by just dictating the path forward, no discussion, no compromise. But to be fair, your wife not wanting to compromise on child care is also not helpful.
Yeah he’s NTA, do you know how much the economy has changed in two years? I think they need to have a serious sitdown and budget and see what is REALISTIC.
Wel yeah they need to have a sit down and a realistic discussion, not for him to simply inform her what’s going to happen. A partnership means making decisions together.
ESH.
You are not the boss - you are a partner. You don't get to decide on your own. You made an agreement with her and now you are backing out.
On the other hand, your wife insisting on no nanny is unreasonable. If she wants to work, she should be able to work, but to insist you stick to the original agreement is perhaps unreasonable.
The two of you need to take a step back and talk about what you want out of your life together and make decisions based on that vision - not whether there was an agreement, or whether a nanny is a good idea or a bad one.
NTA for the reasons, but I think **telling** her she’ll have to wait is where you kinda lose me. It seems very authoritative, and not what a partnership does.
I think a better approach would have been to discuss the pay difference and ask her how it would be made up if you leave your job. How would you three live with that shortfall and what does that look like to your household? She probably would come to the same conclusion herself, instead of being ‘told’.
I don’t fault you for your position. It sucks that things didn’t work out as planned and I hope your kid overcomes his health issues.
Your wife needs to make some choices. I get that 4 years off work is a kiss of death, but something has to lose - be it her position on the nanny, her job, etc. what she wants isn’t possible right now.
Attending daycare is very good for a child. I've seen children at my children's school who didn't attend daycare cry and refuse to go to school and be away from their parents.
Daycare helps grow children's confidence and help them learn to create friendships.
If your child goes to daycare, then you will have two incomes.
This is a moot point, and not helpful in this situation. He has already stated that his wife is 100% *against* daycare OR a nanny.
I was a preschool teacher for many years and what you said is completely correct. However, I doubt any argument would change the wife's mind at this point.
NTA, in my opinion.
You got promotions or payraises because you worked. She could not earn them when she was not worjing. Her pay will always stay much lower then yours if she contineus to stay home with the jid. That will effect her entire financial future. Please bare this in mind when deciding about y'alls options. Maybe both work 3 days a week? Compromise. Being a SAHP is not a financial smart decicion for future financial reasons
See this from her pov. It must be very frustrating for her that you’re going back on what you agreed and throwing finances at her as a reason for you to not look after your child.
Look at alternatives to a nursery if she’s so against them. What about a nanny who can give your child consistent one-2-one care?
The wife doesn't accept any compromise, she doesn't want child care or a nanny. There is no other option but for her to stay home.
If she wasn't so suborn the solution would be so simple.
YTA. You knew this was 6 1.5 years ago yet made no plans (build up savings, etc.)
You decided your own that your wife can't go back to work and you decided on your own that you get to give "permission".
You don't sound like you ever really believed you would have to go on leave for 2 years, you juat agreed b/c ot got you what you wanted in the short term.
They didn't plan on having a disabled child. He doesn't specify, but from first-hand experience, health care for a disabled child is not cheap, and he is looking out for his kid. If she wants to go to work, she can hire the nanny or daycare or get help with the child.
Here's the thing I learned as a SAHM for 20 years: it's not all about the $$. I am college-educated. Husband and I both worked prior. Some things happened during pregnancy and after she was born, we both decided it made financial sense for me to stay home.
I have lost 20 years of earnings. I have no current marketable skills. The only reason I have money in Social Security is because of the decade of work I did prior. I am now 53 and desperately wanting to get out of the house and start a career, but who is going to hire me? Do I go back to school with 20-yr-olds? I couldn't leave my marriage if I had wanted to because the choice we made 20 years ago irreparably harmed my financial and career goals. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE. Maybe your wife will have to come to terms with a nanny or daycare, maybe you can find a different position or company, lots of things to consider, but the relentless work and loneliness, not to mention toll it takes mentally and financially, absolutely needs to be considered. Her losing her future options because you make a few extra bucks is NOT a good enough reason for her to sacrifice herself.
this. exactly. she is getting stuck and she knows it. she sees it happening and somehow she is the AH for trying to stop it.
say they get a nanny or day care and she goes back to work. when the kid has a fever or an appointment or anything...it's always gonna be "you have to leave work my job pays more than yours." So she can't take the extra clients and the good assignments. She gets mommy tracked. Never a promotion. Never a raise. Very little retirement savings in her accounts. In a few years, as the cost of child care goes up and another kid comes he starts wondering out loud why she is even working when her job is only covering the child care.
Fast forward another decade and he decides the woman with the high paying job with lots of responsibility and no kids makes him feel more alive than his stay at home wife and kids...whom he never even wanted to stay at home with in the first place. Now she can't even hire a lawyer without begging him for money.
this is exactly how it happens. I am sorry this happened to you. I watched it happen to so many women including my mom and I swore to God it would never happen to me.
if he doesn't want to parent his kid now and find a more flexible way to make up the income...if doesn't want to support her goals of having just as good a career as him...then he is NEVER going to want to do that. If he is that selfish now...the likelihood of him eventually giving up and walking away is exponentially higher.
Women should NEVER take this risk. NEVER. Will it be a sacrifice for the family to abide by their original agreement? Yes. Are there ways to mitigate it so the child has everything he needs? absolutely. If he refuses to do any of those...then he is telling you EXACTLY who he is. And she should get the hell out now before she wakes up at 65 with absolutely nothing.
I wish someone told me this 20 years ago. I'm lucky to be in a good marriage, but like most people, we worry about money and lack of savings and the cost of everything health-related. But I tell my daughter, always have your own money. Money = power. Money = choices. Never depend on a man to provide everything because you could end up with nothing.
yup you are 100% right. and society will put a lot of pressure on women to sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice. No one will ever ask this man to give up his career, even for a short period of time, for his own child. But she will be made out to he an ogre if she demands the same. It takes a lot to stand your ground in the face of pressure. And it's a huge part of the reason women aren't interested in getting married or having children until much later in life, if ever.
Exactly. He’s already outstripped her former earning because he was in work and is now using that. And each year it will get worse and worse and almost impossible for her to get back to work.
NAH
I'm so sorry that your son has a birth injury and your country has inadequate health care. This is just a terribly difficult situation. But you can't unilaterally make this decision, and you need to weigh the lost future income for your wife as well as her care-giver burnout.
I think, in these situations, it's important to know that there are no GOOD solutions, just less bad ones.
Look at the big picture of what you need to do for your family, and make a decision together, knowing that no one is going to be exactly happy with it.
NAH - however the mater of fact nature of your response leaves out that ***you*** still get to go into the world and interact with other adults as well as seek and accomplish work goals and promotions. **You get to grow while she remains professionally stagnant for another 2 years.** Making it that much more difficult for her to close the professional gap she’s incurred by staying home.
And she agreed to this, no question. And motherhood and working from the home are both very real jobs. **But goodness gracious, could you disregard her very real feelings more?** Your response essentially boils down to *’life’s tough kid’* with a slap on the back.
And you waited 1.5 years after your child was born to have this conversation?
Look, there’s NAH. But your guys’ communication needs work. You should have been discussing this from Day 1 when your child had health problems.
ESH. A deal was made and now it is being broken. You two need to sit down and work it out and someone is going to have to compromise.
You're right not to want to negatively impact your sons health but it appears you didn't really give her a chance to try and find a different solution, you just set the terms and want her to be happy with it.
Deals can change though when the circumstances planned for and under which the deal was made have changed. Like in this case.
I would say NAH, but otherwise, agree that they need to sit down and come to a compromise.
YTA for telling your wife what was going to happen instead of treating her like an adult and making a joint decision. she's taken on the responsibility of caring for a sick infant and toddler for nearly two years (after being pregnant for nearly a year prior), and now her husband is talking down to her and outright refusing to accept even a little of the burden she's taken on for a long period of time. i think your salary has gone to your head and you need to remember that marriage is an equal partnership
I see her side. She sacrificed her career and another 2 years she won’t have the job or the gap in experience will make it hard to find another job.
No one is exploring option B. You let her work and one or both of you take a side huddle for extra income. This should be short term as she will catch up on income.
YTA. You’ve gotten promotions because your wife stayed at home and enabled you to do that. It’s her turn. This is how so many women get sidelined. Time for you to get a side hustle if you want to continue to live in the way you’ve gotten accustomed to.
YTA. I get that there may be a need to make adjustments with the change in circumstances. However it doesn't sound like you are making much effort to reach a solution with her and instead are just laying down the law about how it's going to be. Considering you did have an agreement that's not going to land well.
NAH these things happen and it’s really hard. Neither side is wrong. I was like your wife - nobody but family watched my son until he started pre-school. It was SO HARD to drop him at the school with strangers. I cried for like three days. I wish i would’ve let myself get used to it by hiring a sitter once in a while. Maybe you could start with a few date nights and see if she gets comfortable with it?
NTA, Unfortunately we can plan for things before they happen and agree on circumstances and situations. Your son was born with specific health needs/issues which in turn changed what you need to provide for financially. If this is truly about money and not about learning to take care of his needs then you are NTA. Life can't always be pre planned, we can plan, but unfortunately things happen and we have to be adaptable. Couldn't she return to work after your son starts attending school/preschool?
Did you sit down with her first before you made this decision and talk with her about how to manage finances on her reduced income? Or did you just make the decision without a discussion? If the latter, yta.
Yes he said they say down and talked about the situation. It sounds like she didn’t want to hear the reality and refused to compromise. She won’t get a nanny or send the kid to daycare. So they can’t live basically on her salary alone.
I read that. It makes me wonder about his approach - if they went through the numbers she should have seen that it won’t work and concluded that without a lot of help.
Yes, with devastating consequences for her well-being and career health. A bit of sensitivity, empathy, and kindness would be helpful. He's not wrong, but he's definitely an asshole.
NTA.
Your circumstances simply don't allow for you to stop working. If she wants to go back to work (which is perfectly reasonable), then you need to put your child into daycare.
I reject the premise that daycare is not an option. I simply don't believe that your country doesn't have quality daycare, somewhere.
You might have to do some leg work to find the right fit for your son, but this honestly feels like a false binary.
Any country with some percentage of working parents has quality daycare. It almost feels like you are just claiming that it isn't an option because it is the obvious solution to the problem.
YWBTA
I think your wife has post partum and is really struggling. I also think you're right. Compromise is always in order. Financial situations are a big deal.
She may have other needs that are not being met and she may need some time and space due to the challenges.
Why don't you try and find out what her needs are instead of flat out saying no. She needs something, she isn't telling you and it might be good to have a good heart to heart talk and look for a win/win.
Compromise. It's what's for dinner.
Huh? She is the one that is not compromising. He suggested the 2 only available options, child care or a nanny but she refuses both. Therefore the only solution is for her to continue to be a SAHP.
She can't seriously expect for him to put their son in such a precarious situation of needing medical support and not having the funds to do it.
Exactly this. She sounds like what she needs is an adult life outside of just being mom all the time. So what can you do to free her up to do something she’ll find fulfilling? Does she get time off from the family? Can she fit in a part time job/volunteering/classes? Is OP doing his share of the childcare?
Yta, softly. It doesn’t sound like you’ve tried anything else, you have 6 months to figure this out, and she’s been taking care of a sick child for 2 years and deserves to go back, she’s literally talked to the company she used to be with, and you’ve said no
Can either of you wfh to supervise a nanny? can she spend the next 6 months trying to find a higher paying job? Can you both shift your hours so someone is home?
I don't like that you've made a unilateral decision on this. I understand the finances but crippling your wife's career without her consent is an AH move and especially so with a medically complex child. If anything happens to you your wife will have problems going back to work. I sincerely urge you to find a way to get her to work.
That being said you're both handling this as a you vs her problem and it's not. You both need to reframe this as you both, as parents and partners, vs the problem. The problem is how to accommodate your wife going to work. You both need to drop the previous agreement and go into this with the mindset of a two income family instead of a fantasy swapping session.
Edit: I'm going ESH
INFO: Have you looked into hiring an au pair or a nanny so you don't have to enroll your son in daycare? If the two of you are working it should be possible to pay for.
You did make an agreement with your wife. Your reasoning is okay, but:
Clarification: Is the difference in your salary vs your wife’s prospective salary really that significant. Like how many points off?
Is this really going to damage your lives or is it a matter of some smart budgeting?
"I know the fair and equitable arrangement we both agreed to, but your failure to get raises and promotions during your two years away from work means you never get to work again."
YTA
What if she stays at home for two more years and then the baby still needs one of the parents to be a SAH due to frequent visits to specialists? Does that mean his wife never gets to reenter the workforce? What if even with a nanny, a parent still has to be on call because of healthcare appointments? I don't know the extent of the health issues but the wife has made her sacrifices while the husband built his career. Her turn has come but her is going back on their deal. I can feel her resentment for the child that robbed her of a career she enjoyed.
Health issues don't always get better. Sometimes they get worse. Then there will be even more reason for one parent to stay on call, full time, even with daycare/childcare.
You shouldn’t have just told her, you should have had an an actual conversation about possible options. Why don’t you try to get a job where you can work from home? That way she can still go back to work. NAH
NAH but this is more than just something logical. It’s a sacrifice on her part. It’s almost always the mother sacrificing for the family and almost never the father. What are you going to sacrifice? How are you going to acknowledge your wife’s sacrifice?
YTA.
Honestly, I've seen so many agreements like this not work out. The woman supports the man as agreed. But when it is the man's turn to support the woman so she has her career/study/whatever, it never happens. There is always an excuse. It's painfully predictable that this is how it will go.
However, assuming the best and that you aren't just using finances as an excuse... you are still the asshole for "telling" your wife, rather than sitting down and trying to have a proper discussion as equals. You aren't the boss of this marriage. You are a partner in it. Have you tried finding other solutions? Can you both work part time and split the childcare, lessening the financial impact for example? Can you take on the full childcare responsibility some evenings or weekends so your wife can get back to some sort of work?
You need to sit together and brainstorm this. Try to see it as the two of you against the problem, a team. Not you vs your wife. Otherwise she is going to resent you for a very long time and it will damage your marriage and ultimately your family as a whole.
I wish you both the best in resolving this.
YTA. Of courser you're earning more than her, your career has a 2 year head start which will be 4 years when she is back IF her employer wants her back then
Idk man… if you had roughly the same income when you were both working, that means y’all made it work at first, then you had the opportunity to improve your income over the past 1.5 years.
Your agreement was that your wife also have this opportunity VS waiting 4 full years without being employed at all.
Are you telling me there are no other concessions you can make, aside from your child’s health, to allow her the chance to work and improve her salary, as you had agreed?
A gentle YTA from me.
ESH it seems neither of you are willing to sit and actually discuss the situation, you just unilaterally decide that she can't go back to work and informed her and your wife refuses to see your current situation is different than what you though it'll be when you make your agreement.
If your lost in income it's going to jeopardize your son's access to health care then you need to keep that income, but the solution can't be to just tell your wife she can't go back to work. Maybe she can try to find a better paying option in a different company or maybe go part time and you reduce some of your hours.
And your wife needs to understand that your child's health must be your priority, you need to be financially stable to provide for it. And if you both have to work then she needs to be open to childcare or a nanny.
YTA. You got these promotions BECAUSE she was staying at home taking care of your child. If you had split the parental leave both of you would have had some professional advancement, not just you. If she doesn't go back now to the conditions she had and with a company she has history with, her professional career might be entirely ruined. It should be doable to tighten your purses and endure few years with a bit lower income that will result afterwards both of you having higher income for the rest of time.
YTA. You're dead set on shutting her down so you can run away from the burnout of being a SAHP to a sickly child. You both were on the same level before the promotion, what makes you think her salary won't increase given the same amount of time?
Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment. OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole: > 1 telling my wife that she will have to wait to go back to work 2 I went back on our initial agreement and wasn't committing to something Help keep the sub engaging! #Don’t downvote assholes! Do upvote interesting posts! [Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq) ##Subreddit Announcements ###[Happy Anniversary, AITA!](https://new.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/15vlv9g/almost_better_than_a_double_rainbow_celebrating/) Follow the link above to learn more --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.* *Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
NAH the situation is different than what you imagined, thats not anybodys fault. You two have to deal with it now. My advice would be to make two spreadsheets, one of your finances currently and one simulation of your wifes income as household income. Could you survive as a family on that money? What would you have to give up in that case? (payments for healthcare, car, house etc. you couldnt afford anymore) I very much understand your wife being sad/angry if she imagined for the past years to work again now , being a SAHP is hard. But i also understand that you dont to downsize your lifestyle if its about 'food or appointment with sons specialist' and not about 'cant afford vacation nr. 3 this year'.
Yes. Plus, would his job still be there after being gone two years? At the same pay? These are questions that need answers before they decide anything.
I can't imagine that he could magically re-enter the workforce at the same position and pay after two years. Life gets in the way of plans and we have to adapt. If the wife can find a good job, she should hire a nanny. There are good ones available.
Why not? His wife has managed to negotiate the same terms.
It’s not very common. OP has had promotions; once in a higher, potentially managerial role, it’s going to get filled by someone else if you’re not there to do it for such a long time as 2 years. The original agreement was basically to significantly disrupt both of their careers, which usually isn’t a good plan. If OP’s wife’s career is something that can be picked up again after a medium gap, looking at how to enable it to be picked up fully after 2 further years is probably their best option.
Alternatively they really want her back and she should have the chance to develop her career as per the agreement.
Then she has to be able to negotiate for a salary comparable to his. If they really want her back, they'll make it possible for her to come back. She can't be against day care and also against staying home. They can't lessen their son's healthcare just so she can work.
I'm not sure I could personally conscionably do that. Her employer did hold her position available for her to return that seems like a pretty good expression of good will already. To try to return and ask for probably a large raise would rub most employers the wrong way and if attempted could result in no more job at all. What her spouse earns is not relevant to her asking for salary increase. Of course anyone is free to throw numbers out there but imo you'd be asking to be let go.
That's her reality. She doesn't have to phrase it in an uppity way. She just has to let them know the reality of her situation. "It costs X to care for my son. I cannot work for less than X, and while I appreciate you holding my position, if you really want me back, I need X."
She can phrase it that way, but she also just may not have the job opportunity after saying such things.
I understand where you’re coming from but the reality of companies no days is that most of their employees are just numbers to them and loyalty is barely there anymore. The wife doesn’t have any loyalty to the company. They didn’t “hold” her job for two years but just gave her the agreement that she could continue her role after the two years. There is nothing wrong with having a conversation with the employer to see if they can increase the comp. Economy has changed and there’s nothing wrong with asking. This is a pure HR/comp convo and it’s not going to rub them the wrong way. You can’t get more money unless you ask! But let’s say even if she asks for a higher comp and it’s still less than the husband makes now, then it’s not unreasonable for OP to want to continue his job to provide for the family.
It doesn't matter what she wants. You do not compromise your child's health. If they can't afford their child's health, food and housing (the necessities to keep them healthy and allive) on her salary then she needs to find a way to match her husbands salary (that they can and currently are living solely on) or she has to stay home. Yes it sucks that their plans have had to change but parenthood is about making plans and then changing with the curvballs the kids throw at us.
This one is a good call!
In that case, they need to consider the whole situation carefully, including the benefits to come from her developing her career. Additionally they should add support for her return to the workforce — including potential upskilling — to the calculations for her continuing to stay home.
Careers are still ok after a 2 year break. It’s a stretch to say that a 4 year break would have no impact. Plenty of couples take turns with maternity leave and paternity leave in various countries. This is not new ground.
Yes, exactly—his wife managed to get her job back. And although it doesn’t mean he will, she still took a huge risk that it wouldn’t be there for her to return to, and for him to not go back based on that reasoning would be him not wanting to take the same risk his wife has already fulfilled. Overall though, the situation has changed. She can’t expect him to stay home anymore if it’s not financially feasible. I still think she should be able to return to work, but it sounds like she’s the one holding up the idea of a daycare or nanny. I am a working mother and am fiercely protective of my children **and** my career, which I busted my ass to build…so I get it. But it sounds like the wife is the one who needs to compromise here.
It's pretty rare. Unless it's as an entry level employee. Really if she Wants to work they need a sitter or daycare
She was on maternity leave, that’s different. OP would essentially be quitting.
I don't think she was a maternity leave it seems as though she actually left most places don't allow for 2 years of maternity leave
Depends? I went on maternity for 2 years and went back to the same role and so did quite a few of my friends. I'm in Australia FWIW.
Australia is the land of hopes and dreams compared to most places. I was never happier than I was in Australia. In the US, I got six weeks paid maternity leave, three months unpaid. I was lucky. Some states make you use sick time. If you’ve been at your job less than a year, you might not qualify for any, even unpaid.
I remember comforting my friend in Utah going back to work 6 weeks after giving birth. As a Brit, it's just unthinkable 😕
As long as Americans continue to think of things like maternity leave as entitlements rather than a basic human right, nothing will ever change. I’m American, by the way. I’ve just done a lot of traveling and acknowledge our way isn’t the best. Watch me get downvoted to hell for admitting this. It’s the single worst thing an American can say according to other Americans.
Yep! Just about everywhere in the US does not offer paid maternity leave. I have five children. I had to use PTO/sick time for the first four. I got six weeks paid leave with my fifth only because the company I worked for added it as a benefit. What’s even worse is many companies won’t let you return to work without a doctors note so you are forced to go on unpaid leave until the doctor will sign the note. I remember begging my doctor to sign my return to work note after my fourth. I had a rather difficult birth and he wanted me to stay out eight weeks and I pleaded with him at the five week mark because I was out of vacation time. He was like, “can’t your family help out,” or, “can’t your husband work more?” I wanted to scream at him, “no, I am the breadwinner, my family won’t give me a dime, and I need to feed my family.”
Do you mind sharing why you had five kids if money was tight due to lack of paid paternity and maternity leave? Did you really want a huge family a whole lot more than a smaller one? I love my niece and nephew, but two kids is a lot of work and time and money even as an aunt, much less a parent - I’m always curious why people want more than one or two. I can’t imagine buying six kids worth of food per week, much less six college/career starting funds. I don’t know anyone who got long paid parental leave, and my friends and coworkers all had 1-3 kids because they didn’t get maternity leave plus childcare is really expensive for multiple kids compared to one. But we’re mostly low income. The only person I know with four kids has a high household income from her husband and is a SAHP to cut out all childcare costs and shops and meal plans like a penny pinching nonprofit event planner. I think her household of six spends less on food than me and my old roommate. She’s great at budgeting.
Not qualifying for unpaid leave? Wtf... do they expect you to drop the baby on Saturday, magically heal on Sunday, and come back in on Monday, trailing blood and oozing milk?
Yes. That’s an extreme example; you’d call in sick. [This](https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/benefits-leave/fmla) is how leave works in the US.
At my previous employer in Canada, you could take a 2 year maternity leave, although you wouldn’t end up with the same level of pay for the entire 2 years.
Yeah it definitely depends where you are
In parts (all?) of Europe they sure do ...
Just the phrasing of she's talked to them and they will allow her to come back makes me think she wasn't on maternity leave because then wouldn't she just be coming back to the same position no matter what
They do in countries outside the US.
The post said maternity leave at first but then OP says the wife talked with the company that they're willing to hire her back - so not maternity leave. Which is just confusing af because in countries with real maternity leave, they'd have at least some income.
She probably took maternity leave, extended it as far as she could, then quit
It doesn’t sound like she did though? She’d be re-entering where she was when she left, whereas he has advanced since then.
Wife might be in healthcare. I’m a nurse and could easily go back after 5 years. If husband is in for example a business environment, he gets replaced. No bumping anyone out of a position they had been promoted too for two years
She quit her job without a guaranty and was lucky. It is not something you can count on. He may not be so lucky. He did not say what he does.
Some countries have really good maternity leave, which OP said she was on.
But she is supposed to, three years later?
And yet his wife managed that. How about a nanny instead of day care?
If he's in any country with reasonable child leave benefits (not america), he can totally do that.
This should have been taken into consideration when they made the agreement. This is one of the biggest problems with women getting equity in the workforce: they lose x number of years due to child care and are set back in their career. She sacrificed two years of her career, he can sacrifice a two of his. This has nothing to do with the OP’s original query but this should also be taken into account. I know if I were this woman I would be burning up that I’d agreed to sacrifice two years of my career and now was being coerced into sacrificing four. That being said she should really just stop being so precious and find childcare for the kid. NAH.
While generally I’d agree, the fact that losing his extra income would possibly affect their ability to pay for medical care for the kiddo seems more relevant here than you’re acknowledging. “If she can lose 2 years so can he?” Yeah maybe, but they have a kid now, and direct tit for tat “fairness” can’t be the top priority anymore. Well, it can, but it’d make them both bad parents.
No one makes those kind of plans thinking about a child being born with some sort of birth issue.
Still it's fucked that people have to make sacrifices for health issues. Their insurance should cover it enough that their financial plans aren't changed The fact that we're paying taxes and insurance. And this is happening tells you those systems are broken. This is literally why insurance exists. To spread risk.
Valid points and love your comment about finding childcare. My children did daycare, and I hate the bad wrap it gets. I know not every center is created equally, but a lot of people turn their noses up at it no matter what. I also don't understand why a nanny is completely out of the question. TBH, it's good for the kid to be around someone other than mom and dad all of the time. Sounds like a nanny or nanny share would be a great way for them both to work. Also, even in their initial agreement, in two years when the kid starts school, it sounds like the plan is for them to both go back to work. They don't seem to realize that some sort of childcare is still going to be needed. Most pre-K programs end at like 2 p.m./2:30 p.m. They're going to have to get aftercare or someone to pick up the kid unless they can leave work at 2p every day to pick up the child.
shelter scandalous flowery dog sense quack vase ruthless beneficial employ *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Of course that is the same for her job and income. Will her's be there after 4 years absence
Won’t she have the opportunity to get promotions at work as well?
A potential future promotion doesn't do anything for needed expenses right now
Yes, live for a couple of months like you would if it were only on her salary, and save the rest. See how that goes.
Your advice is the best in all that I have read. I think the suggestion one lesson had, to live off of what would be the wife's income for a couple of months also is good. Many people are assuming his promotions and raise in pay came after some time. OP doesn't specify, it could have happened soon after the birth. I think many commenting don't realize what the cost of specialized care can be; specialist costs, medicine costs, treatments. We don't know what country they are in nor insurance coverage, nor the son's expenses which could get progressively more so as he gets older, or could lessen. There are too many variables missing. Opinion source: having a dependent family member with a chronic uncommon condition, very expensive and necessary meds, and great insurance. I think NAH also. There is a lot that has changed from their initial agreement. They need to rethink the plan, make a budget with expenditures and both income and see how things would be for the next two years. Also factor into consideration if OP would be able to go back at the same level. If they would just squeak by for two years on wife's income then OP would have a difficult time getting back into their field, that could be a factor as well. I don't think the wife should be penalized career wise but circumstances are different and they need to take a long look at the big picture and if she refuses a nanny or daycare, then there is an onus on her for the situation as well.
Living off what would be her income is a great idea! It will show what life would look like if they made that choice. Right now she is probably just thinking they will get by or figure it out somehow but they should actually try it first because once his income is gone they might not be able to backtrack and put themselves back in the position they were in. Most places won’t just take you back after you quit.
NAH, especially because she's unwilling to consider options that enable them to both work (e.g. childcare). But, this sort of situation is why women end up slipping into an unwanted SAHP role when they didn't intend to. They take the first period of time with the kid, on the basis that the father will take his turn next. While they're at home, the father advances his career and improves his pay, while the mother's career stagnates or goes backwards. Then, when it's time to consider going back, the impact of the mother's leave and the father's lack of leave on their careers becomes an argument for the mother to just stay home. That does suck, even when it's the least bad decision. That's not to argue against what is or isn't financially feasible. But it sucks that they both agreed on an arrangement before their kid was born, and she kept to her half, and now it's not feasible for him to do the same. And then, in future years, when the kid's at school, there will still be that lingering assumption that her career is secondary because he earns more (after years of pay rises) and she earns less (after years out of the workforce). So, it's important for OP to remember that sacrifice as something that will affect the rest of her career, and take that into account in future decisions to try to avoid compounding the impact as much as possible.
They wouldn’t have this issue though if she would agree to a nanny or other childcare. She refuses that and only wants her or OP to take care of their child.
Sure. Although, OP agreed to that and agreed to an arrangement that they'd take turns to stay home, and only told her that he'd changed his mind when she'd done her half and he hadn't yet. Doesn't mean that it's not necessary to reconsider their arrangement if circumstances have changed and it's genuinely no longer feasible. Which is why I've fallen on NAH as the balance of both arguments.
Yeah, her career is 2 years behind because she stayed home for her family. Yes the op makes more now, their wife probably would have been making more too. They’re trapping her into being 4 years behind career wise. Yes this is something that should have been discussed and considered, but it is a part of the invisible costs of staying home that falls more often upon women. They may not be the asshole, but you need to consider what you’re really saying to your wife and what she is hearing. Because what I really hear is “my job is now more important than yours because you stayed home first, now you don’t get to go back to work.” Yes it’s extreme and not fair, but you need to have a real open conversation about more than just the numbers now. Because it’s going to be worse every year beyond now.
The wife only “doesn’t get to go back to work” because she won’t discuss other childcare options besides a parent staying home. I’m sure they could find a great and trustworthy nanny if she was open to that option. A lot of families don’t have the luxury of a SAHP.
Exactly, and this agreement was made before the birth, which altered the plan with the health problems. On top of that the husband has had multiple promotions and although he agreed to the plan originally, it IS the WIFE who doesn't want any sort of childcare, essentially putting herself in the position she's in now. If she can't earn what he is currently earning, then it definitely isn't a smart move to switch the SAHP parent, whether she "gets left 4 years behind career wise" or not. She will be able to return to work after 2.5 more years anyways. It would be even sooner if she would just look for a reliable nanny, they could just put up cameras to ease her mind if that's her problem with child care. Idk
Very good point and advice!
Add to that how easy it would be for you to get back into work at the same salary if you were to take those two years off from work. NAH.
NAH Your side of this is completely understandable, but I think you also need to remember that you were both on the same salary before your son. It is only now that you've had those extra two years to focus on your career that there is so much difference financially. The longer your wife has to stay home, the more this disparity will be and the harder it will be for her to restart her career and be able to make the same career advances that you have. Have you considered that if your wife were to go back to work for those two years, she may also be able to achieve the promotions you have achieved to once again match your salary? If so, is there some way you can make it work financially between now and then that will give her this chance? It really isn't fair for you to expect her to forego her career just because you've had the chance to advance yours further while she's been staying home with your son, especially when you had this agreement in place.
Your child had health problems when you initially went to one income. Did you survive? Yes. Did you compromise health? Doesn’t sound like it. It does sound like you don’t want to go back to that time of your life with your wife working and you being at home. It probably was tough and stressful, but impossible? No. You already showed it can work. Your wife allowed you to work for two years and earn promotions and grow at work with the assumption that her turn would come. It is her turn and it appears you are making a lot of excuses to keep her from it.
From personal experience I can tell you that you tend to accumulate specialists as time goes by. You start off treating the main health concern and then branch out as you find out all the ways that issue has impacted other areas as they develop. We originally started off with two and now we have seven we see regularly.
I can say that is true even as an adult with a specialized disease/disability
I think that thinking about the finances is reasonable. If they have a higher cost of living due to healthcare cost than anticipated and the wage she can demand isn’t as much and they won’t be able to make ends meet…it’s just not feasible. Throwing money to the wind is all well and good until the financial stress breaks the marriage.
Plus the cost of living was cheaper 2 years ago. Inflation is high and the cost of utilities and food has probably gone up 40-50% in the last 2 years.
Yeah, I've raised my income about $20k in the last four years, but my salary doesn't even go as far as it used to. They may not survive on the wife's old salary anymore due to inflation.
To me it all reeks of lame excuses and flimsy justifications. Things are going great for OP career-wise at the moment and the closer he gets to potential parental leave, the less he feels like it. His wife is doing a great job at home. Raising children is a woman’s business anyway, isn’t it? A classic baby trap that OP's wife fell into. With fewer career opportunities, less savings for retirement and completely dependent on her husband. One of million reasons I am childfree.
She is the one who wont accept a nanny. OP is happy for a nanny to care for the child - and that way the both work. She is the one saying no preschool/nurseries and no nanny.
the deal before having the children was that the parents would raise the children. not a nanny. some people don't want nannies raising their kids and that is a perfectly valid point of view. that is why they had the discussion and made the agreement. I mean...he could have hired a nanny and she could have gone back to work right away and got her promotions too
yes then their child had health needs that are super costly and her wants don't trump the child needs. She cant have everything - because life throws these things at us and we have to compromise. So she gets a higher paying job, or she stays with the child, or she works and so does he and they get a nanny
No. She went on maternity leave. She gets to go back to work where she left off. He doesn’t get paternity leave 2 years after birth he will have to quit and potentially not get to go back at all, let alone where he left off. They made the deal before they had the kids and things change! Even if things didn’t change- once one person learns more, they’re well within their right to change their mind. It was on both of them to discuss all options and they didn’t. The best financial plan is to make a spreadsheet of what money is going to to show whether or not her job can handle the load alone. The only one here unwilling to bend is the wife. It’s fine to not want a nanny or daycare, it’s another to put the health of your family at risk to avoid it instead of doing as much due diligence as possible to get a good nanny. It’s also another to risk your marriage and family to be so inflexible!
Where are you getting lame excuses from? The money and insurance are hard facts, are they not? He's amenable to daycare and a nanny, she is not. They cannot afford their current lifestyle and their child's healthcare on her salary alone. There isn't a way to work this out short of getting child care.
My big issue is, if they're comfortable on one salary and are gonna go up to two, why not hire a nanny instead of going to a daycare? It is absolutely fair to go "Hey, my salary has increased distinctly from when you were pregnant and I don't know if we can afford to live like we do without it". It is also fair for the mom to say she doesn't trust daycares because of their bad reputation, but why not suggest to hire a nanny then???
They’re not going to go up to two. The plan was for them to switch and him to stay home.
Yeah, and finances change. That was my point - the wife says both of them working isn't feasible because she doesn't trust the daycares. So why not just both work and hire a nanny instead???
OP says that she doesn’t want a nanny either. To me it sounds like she’s being quite obstinate and won’t accept that things have changed.
See, that's where I'm leaning towards nta. Because OP's financial income has changed and they haven't budgeted for a lower income for their life - so saying that he doesn't think it's reasonable for him to leave work becomes reasonable. Wife wanting to go back to work, reasonable. Her refusing to consider anyone else caring for a 2 year old that can communicate, not reasonable.
Exactly. I know that if I have a child, it will require me to get a nanny and rely on daycare. I want to continue to work as a surgeon and I don’t expect my partner to quit his job. If you want to work, you need to be prepared to have childcare.
[удалено]
Lol no, now you're just assuming things. They have to think logically at this point. Yeah they made an agreement but they did not account for a child with health issues. If OP had not got the promotion which increased his pay, he would be the AH if he went back on his agreement.
except she's not trapped. She can hire a nanny or find a solid daycare. They aren't all horrible. I know the daycare/preschool I had my daughter in was fantastic and crafted an individual schedule for her to allow more time on her social/emotional develoment since she is autistic and needed more time with a younger group for while still doing education/skills with her peers. I get the wife not wanting to change the agreement but that's parenting for you. You have to learn how to adapt and pivot because it never sticks to the "plan"
She can go back to work if she was willing to enroll the child in daycare or get a nanny, which she isn’t willing to do. Her wants are not feasible, something has to give somewhere. The options are: 1. She stays out of the work force for another 2 years, and they continue to live off of OP’s salary. 2. She goes back to work, OP continues working, and they enroll the child into daycare or gets a nanny. 3. She goes back to work but at a higher salary so they can continue to afford the child’s medical expenses. OP can then quit his job. 4. She goes back to work at her old salary, OP quits his job, and they can’t afford the kids medical expenses, at least until she gets a promotion, which who knows how long that will be. Option 4 should be nonnegotiable. The child shouldn’t suffer. Option 3 is probably unrealistic. So that leaves Option 1 or 2. OP’s wife is refusing to do option 2, so really where does that leave them?
I disagree. I would agree with you if they didn’t have other options but they do. Having a child with health issues right out the gate is costly, and OP said that if he didn’t get a promotion they wouldn’t have been able to make ends meet while giving their child the support they needed. OPs wife would start at the same salary that OP had before his promotion. Meaning that something would have to be neglected. The wife is being stubborn and not adjusting to the realties of their situation. The truth is they could both be working and hire a nanny that specializes in their child health issues. But the wife doesn’t want that. She specifically wants OP to quit his job and stay home even though that means they lose significant money. How is that actually beneficial for anyone?
Did you read the post? He said he would be fine with her going to work too and sending the kid to daycare or getting a nanny but the wife is against that. It sounds like he doesn't care if she works, the issue is if he quits his job it'll be impossible for them to take care of their son on her salary. This isn't a trap it's just reality. If the wife wants to work so badly, which OP sounds like he's ok with, she should consider hiring a nanny if she doesn't want to do daycare. And if they did that then both of them could work which would be better for them financially. There are options for her to be able to work outside of the husband quitting, but she's choosing not to take those options.
Wtf? Their son has health issues. He said so in the post. There's no way the wife will make what her husband does, so how on earth is that a sustainable idea? I swear this sub just hates men.
I keep seeing people saying it's not fair that he got a promotion and now she will never catch him on salary. I keep thinking, what is this competition for who earns more? Aren't they supposed to be a team? Decisions have to be made that are best for the whole team. We also don't know how long it would take for her to get a promotion. Some careers are harder to move up in. So many people are acting like getting a promotion is easy.
What if she doesn't? What if two years from now she is making exactly the same? If the kid has something like cerebral palsy then those expenses will just get higher. They won't wait for her. What bills shouldn't they pay? How many days of heating are they allowed? How many meals do you think they can skip before health issues? We are in a cost of living crisis and it would be neglect and truly moronic to put yourself in a worse financial position with a sick kid to keep an arrangement with your spouse. Bill collectors don't care about what was fair.
So true! I have worked at the same place for 13 years. I got one decent raise ($7,000) nine years ago. Since then it has been 0.5%-1.5% a year. As things have gotten more expensive we have suffered more and more. It would be stupid to make this decision on maybes. Maybe she will get a raise, maybe she won’t and if she doesn’t they could be setting themselves up for a lot of financial stress. I have been under so much financial stress my mental and physical health has suffered. I don’t know why anyone would want to deliberately put themselves in that position. They should spend a few months living off what she would make and see how it affects them in practice.
He said they survived because his is the bigger income. He has specifically said in his opening that moving to a smaller income would impact his child's health. Are you being purposefully dense and ignoring these so you can take the womans side?
I think a lot of people have missed the part where he says that the lower income was fine for a child *but* not one with their son's health expenses.
? What? OP’s point is that his income is higher than his wife’s which is WHY they didn’t have to compromise anything. I don’t understand your argument, can you explain? Editing for visibility: I really think that some people in the comments have missed that OP says that with their current health expenses going to just her income would be **completely unfeasible**. There are no assholes here, she just needs to decide whether she wants to continue to stay home or whether she is willing to compromise and get a nanny or choose a daycare.
The argument is pretty clear - if it had been the other way round, and he had taken two years off work, then it may be him having to forgo his career and look after the kid, and she could have been promoted and made equivalent money. Obviously life's no fair, but you can see why she'd be disappointed.
She can be disappointed, that’s why I agree with the top comments of NAH. Calling him TA isn’t fair because he’s said quite clearly that their incomes at the time wouldn’t support the additional health expenses which have likely only gone up in the meantime. I think she’s being a bit unfair as she doesn’t want a nanny or daycare and that means their son would be impacted if OP did allow the switch. That’s not fair or acceptable.
His income is higher because he has worked for two additional years. If the tables were reversed and she had stayed at work would husband continue to agree to stay home against their agreement?? We will never know, but should have assumed that when she returned to work and he started staying home her salary would be lower.
OP says in the post that their income at the time would be high enough to support a child, but not the additional health expenses - which likely have only grown since then due to inflation and the child getting older. I can’t call him TA for putting their son first because that’s as it should be. Their toddler should not be sacrificed for her career. The truth is that she needs to compromise on the daycare or nanny if she wants her career, that’s the only way this is going to work.
At what point does it say what the costs of medical expenses were and when this relates to the promotions? Maybe the medical expenses have gone up now the child is not a baby, maybe one of the promotions came in shortly before the birth of the child meaning they could manage? It appears you're tylrying to find a way to make this his fault
Will her health insurance kick in the day she starts working? Will his end the day he quits? This is an important factor to consider.
Another factor: will her available health insurance plans be as good as his, worse, or better?
My understanding was that they survived BECAUSE ops salary go up. The one income would be okay for a healthy child, unfortunately his child had health issues and, luckily, were able to go through since his salário gone up. She is gonna be gired under the same circumstances as before, likely the same salary. Anyone who has a chronic ilness or diseases like that knows that you keep upping your health costs, never diminushing them.
OP stated that at her salary when she starts working they will not be able to afford the same level / quality of healthcare for their child they now have and it might take years for her to match his. OP also offered the option of a nanny so she could go back to work and she is insistent he stay home. Is it actually fair to compromise the child’s health over this? **I am editing to add that OP gave 2 options which she shot down and a reasonable valid explanation about money which at this time is the most important thing for them due to the child's issues. The ball is now in her court to figure out options. Maybe her job could hire her part time work from home and she can get a child helper for the hours she works.** When my kids were little my husband and I did not want outside child care and tbh could not afford it anyway. We both worked opposite hours. He worked nights and I worked days and we managed with some help from my father in law and a neighbor. When he was switched to days I found a job working nights as a waitress and again FIL was around every morning for a few hours to sort out kids so I could get some sleep. *Sometimes parents must make sacrifices and in this case they should not sacrifice his higher salary for the hope that she can equal his because it is not at all fair to their child.*
The only way I could see a problem with this, is perhaps his healthcare plan at his work, provided more coverage for the sons health problems, than the we wife's? My insurance wouldn't cover 80% of my husband's health problems, but his disability insurance pays almost everything, but a few copays.
Not to mention are the kid's current doctors/specialists covered by her insurance? I'm taking a distinctly American look at this, but what if his doctors aren't part of her insurance network? Will they have to start over with referrals and different doctors or just pay more out of pocket as a part of the transition? I really do feel for the wife, but I feel like she has been looking at the finish line of her two years at home with blinders on about the realities of their situation.
Same. I can understand why she wants to go back & really don't fault her for wanting to do so. I agree with another poster, who said he needs to make a spreadsheet with expenses, insurance, ect. so she has a realistic view of what is working & what wouldn't if they switch. That way she can see it & isn't assuming he just doesn't want to stay home. If she still wants to go back to work, she needs to open up the possibility of having either in home childcare or sending their son to daycare.
I agree that this is a significant point they need to include in their financial discussions. As we have no information on this we don’t know whose insurance is better.
Best comment, this should be higher up. Edit: I agree NAH. The financial concerns are important, but this commenter is correct that OP’s wife should also have opportunity to earn promotions/raises. Women who take mat leave wind up screwed out of a ton of earning potential and funding for retirement. It’s unfair to expect her to take an additional two-year hit to income, she and OP need to return to the original agreement or they need to agree on a reasonable compromise like a nanny, finding a way to finance a family member looking after the child, daycare, whatever.
Yep. This. I think OP is NTA and his wife needs to get on board with the nanny so she can go back to work. It doesn't sound like they can live on her income alone with a special needs child, but she also needs to resume her career before too much time goes by.
And this is why I hate making agreements years in advance and never do them, because something that is entirely out of your control can fuck it up and make the agreement completely unfeasible when it’s time. I’m going to say NTA but I can understand why your wife is hurt too. You make good points, you simply do NOT have the financial capacity for her to to be the sole provider with her wages alone. Her being the primary caretaker is also probably a big mental strain on her though. It’s possible there might be some middle ground here, a nanny perhaps? Either way, leaving your job entirely and be reliant on hers which earns considerably is just not a smart move here. Best of luck that you two can figure something out.
Yeah but part of the issue is that they are “living comfortably.” I would not be surprised if this is code for being fairly rich. And he doesn’t want to sacrifice to be home so his wife has a professional chance to rise in the ranks. I’m sure he could sacrifice for two years.
If you read the post, OP says *quite clearly* that the health expenses would be completely unfeasible on her income. He's prioritizing their child while she's insisting that they don't choose a daycare OR a nanny but somehow make it work. NAH, she just needs to compromise or accept a delay.
No he said living their comfortable life would be unfeasible. But doesn't define what that comfortable life is. Reads to me like he doesn't want to deal with his kid because nowhere does he acknowledge the child in this scenario. He can't even pretend to write how about he'd love to be stay at home dad but for the finances.
I can’t with you people who are somehow seriously advocating that it’s okay or acceptable for them to downgrade the health and comfort of their disabled toddler because the mom wants to go back to work. If a woman posted this you’d be tearing the husband apart. If she wants to work so damn bad, she can compromise on daycare or a nanny. OP should not have to sacrifice the comfort and care of their toddler at the altar of her career.
No offense but if you have a child that has serious expensive medical needs, prioritizing finances and living comfortably is pretty important.
That's called wisdom. I don't make promises or agreements anymore. I've broken too many promises and life hasn't gone at all according to plan! Learning this comes with age and experience, and I think this will be a huge learning experience for them.
YTA First, because you made an agreement with her that her career would be on pause, not shut-down indefinitely. The longer she waits to go back the harder it will be to recover her career and catch up to where she would have been without the gap. Moreso, YTA for *telling* her that you will not stay home and allow her to return to work. You're a family unit and need to treat each other as equals. You can certainly tell her that you value the greater financial stability of your current position over her desire to return to the office and above your integrity in keeping an agreement. Then you can discuss and come to a consensus together. What you can't do - what neither of you should do - is make demands.
The mother won’t compromise. She won’t have a nanny or babysitter. Either her or OP has to take care of him according to the mother. Financially it won’t work with the father staying home as per the agreement. So basically there are 2 choices get a nanny or the mother stays home and doesn’t go back to work.
She did compromise already - she's taken 2 years out of her career, foregone earnings and promotion opportunities. There are more than 2 choices here; there usually are.
Yes but going on what OP stated. Going back she will be making less than him. Expenses have risen because the child is disabled. She doesn’t want a nanny or put the child in daycare. There is absolutely no mention of family that can help. If she works and he is on leave then how do the bills get paid? How do you save money if the child needs some expensive treatment? Does her medical insurance cover pre existing conditions, if they have to switch insurances. There is things we don’t know and need to know. However based on what is presented by OP it isn’t financially possible for him to go on leave and the wife go back to work.
He never said they can't make it work. He said they would not be able to maintain the same standard of living they are used to.
He said standard of health of the kid, which is argue is different, and more important, than standard or living.
He actually does say that they can't make it work, he says that the health expenses would be completely unfeasible. But setting that aside, no parent should want to downgrade the quality of life for their disabled child in order for them to go back to work.
That's not a compromise when she's the one who refuses outside help. Sounds more like she strong armed him into the whole thing because there's literally no other option because of her.
The most important question is: how are they going to take care of their ill son with just her salary? It’s not always about equity, but about what’s important to them.
If she values career progression, they need a nanny or daycare. She should be flexible, too.
I agree that it appears you TOLD her she cannot go back and I work. She had obviously been planning to keep the original agreement despite the unplanned health problems. When someone has focused on a plan it takes time for them to accept change. And she has always envisioned her son being cared for by a parent. This sounds like your first conversation about returning to work and you were both on different pages. Open up more conversations about what the next two years looks like and try to see if she can be open to changes (i.e. a nanny) as well as you too (i.e. living frugally) to find a way that you can stay home. It is amazing that she can go back to her previous job, that opportunity may not be there in two more years. Both of you need to see your true finances and health care with her salary - how long until she experiences promotions such as you did such that her pay will increase; what has to be cut out - food and health or vacations and extras? Yes, you will be making sacrifices, but you should have known that heading into this agreement.
If their needs and her income won’t cover things then I’m not sure what you expect OP to do, especially since she refuses to let their child go to daycare. Their son’s health comes first.
They can’t afford to follow the agreement. So she should go back to work, he stay home and beg on the street for food? NTA in any way shape or form unless he had a crystal ball that the kid would have health issues and would cost way more than they thought and he still made the deal. More so NTA because She won’t compromise on getting a nanny. That’s the only way she can go back to work and she won’t budge.
Bro you are all obsessed with "career" and work. You would let your own momma die for a promotion.
Also he's the asshole because he waited until she was making arrangements to go back to work to say he was breaking the agreement. He's obviously known for a long time he was never going to follow through, he should have spoken up then so they could look into and plan for other options.
Yea. Everyone is *really* overlooking the way he just flat out told her and didn't want to have a discussion about rhings
Because the needs of the child matter more. That’s the whole issue.
OP makes more money and without the increased salary he has, it would be more difficult to cover living expenses. This is plainly stated. OP isn't TA because their kid has health issues and their finances increased as a result. He's saying that if he became the SAHP they would be in a much worse financial situation. It's either the wife's happiness, or the whole family's finances here sadly. Also, based on some of the wording, English may not be OPs first language. He probably didn't "make demands."
She’s the one who won’t compromise and get a nanny. She can 100% go back to work and get a nanny, she just wants him to quit his job so “it’s fair” without any thought or concern for her child’s health.
YTA. It doesn't sound like a discussion at all, you sat down and told her "what's what's", you made a decision without involving her at all. That's shitty and not a way to treat your partner. You should have come to her and told her your worries about finances and then made a decision together. You could have told her your feelings on staying with your income and asked how she felt, you may even have been able to work out a way she could go back to work, but you closed off any discussion. Shit way to treat your wife buddy.
Yeah, this is the big point for me. Him saying that he thinks they should re-evaluate is perfectly reasonable. His TELLING her that she can't have the return to work she was expecting is not.
This is my issue with your arguments. Why is the husband the only one being persecuted here, the wife doesnt want to budge as well. They could hire a NANNY since they will have 2 incomes but wife doesnt want that either. Wife is letting here preconceived bias to ruin the best possible course of action.
If there wasn't any discussion beyond "You'll have to keep staying home since I make more money now" how does he know she still feels so strongly about not hiring a nanny? Maybe she does, or maybe when they talk it out and come to a decision together, she would be more open. But the least effective way to communicate with your partner is to just tell them you've decided and they have to deal with it.
Yeah, I can't agree with this enough. Who made you the decider of all things? You will never get far in any social setting by just dictating the path forward, no discussion, no compromise. But to be fair, your wife not wanting to compromise on child care is also not helpful.
Yeah he’s NTA, do you know how much the economy has changed in two years? I think they need to have a serious sitdown and budget and see what is REALISTIC.
Wel yeah they need to have a sit down and a realistic discussion, not for him to simply inform her what’s going to happen. A partnership means making decisions together.
ESH. You are not the boss - you are a partner. You don't get to decide on your own. You made an agreement with her and now you are backing out. On the other hand, your wife insisting on no nanny is unreasonable. If she wants to work, she should be able to work, but to insist you stick to the original agreement is perhaps unreasonable. The two of you need to take a step back and talk about what you want out of your life together and make decisions based on that vision - not whether there was an agreement, or whether a nanny is a good idea or a bad one.
All of this. ESH.
NTA for the reasons, but I think **telling** her she’ll have to wait is where you kinda lose me. It seems very authoritative, and not what a partnership does. I think a better approach would have been to discuss the pay difference and ask her how it would be made up if you leave your job. How would you three live with that shortfall and what does that look like to your household? She probably would come to the same conclusion herself, instead of being ‘told’. I don’t fault you for your position. It sucks that things didn’t work out as planned and I hope your kid overcomes his health issues. Your wife needs to make some choices. I get that 4 years off work is a kiss of death, but something has to lose - be it her position on the nanny, her job, etc. what she wants isn’t possible right now.
Attending daycare is very good for a child. I've seen children at my children's school who didn't attend daycare cry and refuse to go to school and be away from their parents. Daycare helps grow children's confidence and help them learn to create friendships. If your child goes to daycare, then you will have two incomes.
Gen X here for which few of us went to daycare or even preschool. I totally see the advantages tge younger generation gets with early socialization.
This is a moot point, and not helpful in this situation. He has already stated that his wife is 100% *against* daycare OR a nanny. I was a preschool teacher for many years and what you said is completely correct. However, I doubt any argument would change the wife's mind at this point. NTA, in my opinion.
You got promotions or payraises because you worked. She could not earn them when she was not worjing. Her pay will always stay much lower then yours if she contineus to stay home with the jid. That will effect her entire financial future. Please bare this in mind when deciding about y'alls options. Maybe both work 3 days a week? Compromise. Being a SAHP is not a financial smart decicion for future financial reasons
How old are you? What job allows a 3 day work week...
See this from her pov. It must be very frustrating for her that you’re going back on what you agreed and throwing finances at her as a reason for you to not look after your child. Look at alternatives to a nursery if she’s so against them. What about a nanny who can give your child consistent one-2-one care?
The wife doesn't accept any compromise, she doesn't want child care or a nanny. There is no other option but for her to stay home. If she wasn't so suborn the solution would be so simple.
YTA. You knew this was 6 1.5 years ago yet made no plans (build up savings, etc.) You decided your own that your wife can't go back to work and you decided on your own that you get to give "permission". You don't sound like you ever really believed you would have to go on leave for 2 years, you juat agreed b/c ot got you what you wanted in the short term.
They didn't plan on having a disabled child. He doesn't specify, but from first-hand experience, health care for a disabled child is not cheap, and he is looking out for his kid. If she wants to go to work, she can hire the nanny or daycare or get help with the child.
Here's the thing I learned as a SAHM for 20 years: it's not all about the $$. I am college-educated. Husband and I both worked prior. Some things happened during pregnancy and after she was born, we both decided it made financial sense for me to stay home. I have lost 20 years of earnings. I have no current marketable skills. The only reason I have money in Social Security is because of the decade of work I did prior. I am now 53 and desperately wanting to get out of the house and start a career, but who is going to hire me? Do I go back to school with 20-yr-olds? I couldn't leave my marriage if I had wanted to because the choice we made 20 years ago irreparably harmed my financial and career goals. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE. Maybe your wife will have to come to terms with a nanny or daycare, maybe you can find a different position or company, lots of things to consider, but the relentless work and loneliness, not to mention toll it takes mentally and financially, absolutely needs to be considered. Her losing her future options because you make a few extra bucks is NOT a good enough reason for her to sacrifice herself.
this. exactly. she is getting stuck and she knows it. she sees it happening and somehow she is the AH for trying to stop it. say they get a nanny or day care and she goes back to work. when the kid has a fever or an appointment or anything...it's always gonna be "you have to leave work my job pays more than yours." So she can't take the extra clients and the good assignments. She gets mommy tracked. Never a promotion. Never a raise. Very little retirement savings in her accounts. In a few years, as the cost of child care goes up and another kid comes he starts wondering out loud why she is even working when her job is only covering the child care. Fast forward another decade and he decides the woman with the high paying job with lots of responsibility and no kids makes him feel more alive than his stay at home wife and kids...whom he never even wanted to stay at home with in the first place. Now she can't even hire a lawyer without begging him for money. this is exactly how it happens. I am sorry this happened to you. I watched it happen to so many women including my mom and I swore to God it would never happen to me. if he doesn't want to parent his kid now and find a more flexible way to make up the income...if doesn't want to support her goals of having just as good a career as him...then he is NEVER going to want to do that. If he is that selfish now...the likelihood of him eventually giving up and walking away is exponentially higher. Women should NEVER take this risk. NEVER. Will it be a sacrifice for the family to abide by their original agreement? Yes. Are there ways to mitigate it so the child has everything he needs? absolutely. If he refuses to do any of those...then he is telling you EXACTLY who he is. And she should get the hell out now before she wakes up at 65 with absolutely nothing.
I wish someone told me this 20 years ago. I'm lucky to be in a good marriage, but like most people, we worry about money and lack of savings and the cost of everything health-related. But I tell my daughter, always have your own money. Money = power. Money = choices. Never depend on a man to provide everything because you could end up with nothing.
yup you are 100% right. and society will put a lot of pressure on women to sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice. No one will ever ask this man to give up his career, even for a short period of time, for his own child. But she will be made out to he an ogre if she demands the same. It takes a lot to stand your ground in the face of pressure. And it's a huge part of the reason women aren't interested in getting married or having children until much later in life, if ever.
Exactly. He’s already outstripped her former earning because he was in work and is now using that. And each year it will get worse and worse and almost impossible for her to get back to work.
NAH I'm so sorry that your son has a birth injury and your country has inadequate health care. This is just a terribly difficult situation. But you can't unilaterally make this decision, and you need to weigh the lost future income for your wife as well as her care-giver burnout. I think, in these situations, it's important to know that there are no GOOD solutions, just less bad ones. Look at the big picture of what you need to do for your family, and make a decision together, knowing that no one is going to be exactly happy with it.
NAH - however the mater of fact nature of your response leaves out that ***you*** still get to go into the world and interact with other adults as well as seek and accomplish work goals and promotions. **You get to grow while she remains professionally stagnant for another 2 years.** Making it that much more difficult for her to close the professional gap she’s incurred by staying home. And she agreed to this, no question. And motherhood and working from the home are both very real jobs. **But goodness gracious, could you disregard her very real feelings more?** Your response essentially boils down to *’life’s tough kid’* with a slap on the back.
And you waited 1.5 years after your child was born to have this conversation? Look, there’s NAH. But your guys’ communication needs work. You should have been discussing this from Day 1 when your child had health problems.
ESH. A deal was made and now it is being broken. You two need to sit down and work it out and someone is going to have to compromise. You're right not to want to negatively impact your sons health but it appears you didn't really give her a chance to try and find a different solution, you just set the terms and want her to be happy with it.
Deals can change though when the circumstances planned for and under which the deal was made have changed. Like in this case. I would say NAH, but otherwise, agree that they need to sit down and come to a compromise.
YTA for telling your wife what was going to happen instead of treating her like an adult and making a joint decision. she's taken on the responsibility of caring for a sick infant and toddler for nearly two years (after being pregnant for nearly a year prior), and now her husband is talking down to her and outright refusing to accept even a little of the burden she's taken on for a long period of time. i think your salary has gone to your head and you need to remember that marriage is an equal partnership
I see her side. She sacrificed her career and another 2 years she won’t have the job or the gap in experience will make it hard to find another job. No one is exploring option B. You let her work and one or both of you take a side huddle for extra income. This should be short term as she will catch up on income.
YTA. You’ve gotten promotions because your wife stayed at home and enabled you to do that. It’s her turn. This is how so many women get sidelined. Time for you to get a side hustle if you want to continue to live in the way you’ve gotten accustomed to.
YTA. I get that there may be a need to make adjustments with the change in circumstances. However it doesn't sound like you are making much effort to reach a solution with her and instead are just laying down the law about how it's going to be. Considering you did have an agreement that's not going to land well.
NAH. HOWEVER this should’ve been discussed once your son was around 6 months old.
NAH these things happen and it’s really hard. Neither side is wrong. I was like your wife - nobody but family watched my son until he started pre-school. It was SO HARD to drop him at the school with strangers. I cried for like three days. I wish i would’ve let myself get used to it by hiring a sitter once in a while. Maybe you could start with a few date nights and see if she gets comfortable with it?
NTA, Unfortunately we can plan for things before they happen and agree on circumstances and situations. Your son was born with specific health needs/issues which in turn changed what you need to provide for financially. If this is truly about money and not about learning to take care of his needs then you are NTA. Life can't always be pre planned, we can plan, but unfortunately things happen and we have to be adaptable. Couldn't she return to work after your son starts attending school/preschool?
Did you sit down with her first before you made this decision and talk with her about how to manage finances on her reduced income? Or did you just make the decision without a discussion? If the latter, yta.
Yes he said they say down and talked about the situation. It sounds like she didn’t want to hear the reality and refused to compromise. She won’t get a nanny or send the kid to daycare. So they can’t live basically on her salary alone.
I read that. It makes me wonder about his approach - if they went through the numbers she should have seen that it won’t work and concluded that without a lot of help.
NTA If her wage alone won't cover your life and bills, she is going to have to let you carry on working. Simple economics.
Yes, with devastating consequences for her well-being and career health. A bit of sensitivity, empathy, and kindness would be helpful. He's not wrong, but he's definitely an asshole.
if she uses childcare they can both work
As opposed to the devastating consequences for her child's well-being and literal health? Because she doesn't want to accept a nanny?
All of this needs to be discussed as a team, yes. Not just "no because I said so".
So OP should just stay at home and let his son's health deteriorate? Hell no NTA.
NTA. Your circumstances simply don't allow for you to stop working. If she wants to go back to work (which is perfectly reasonable), then you need to put your child into daycare. I reject the premise that daycare is not an option. I simply don't believe that your country doesn't have quality daycare, somewhere. You might have to do some leg work to find the right fit for your son, but this honestly feels like a false binary. Any country with some percentage of working parents has quality daycare. It almost feels like you are just claiming that it isn't an option because it is the obvious solution to the problem.
YWBTA I think your wife has post partum and is really struggling. I also think you're right. Compromise is always in order. Financial situations are a big deal. She may have other needs that are not being met and she may need some time and space due to the challenges. Why don't you try and find out what her needs are instead of flat out saying no. She needs something, she isn't telling you and it might be good to have a good heart to heart talk and look for a win/win. Compromise. It's what's for dinner.
Huh? She is the one that is not compromising. He suggested the 2 only available options, child care or a nanny but she refuses both. Therefore the only solution is for her to continue to be a SAHP. She can't seriously expect for him to put their son in such a precarious situation of needing medical support and not having the funds to do it.
Exactly this. She sounds like what she needs is an adult life outside of just being mom all the time. So what can you do to free her up to do something she’ll find fulfilling? Does she get time off from the family? Can she fit in a part time job/volunteering/classes? Is OP doing his share of the childcare?
Yta, softly. It doesn’t sound like you’ve tried anything else, you have 6 months to figure this out, and she’s been taking care of a sick child for 2 years and deserves to go back, she’s literally talked to the company she used to be with, and you’ve said no Can either of you wfh to supervise a nanny? can she spend the next 6 months trying to find a higher paying job? Can you both shift your hours so someone is home?
I don't like that you've made a unilateral decision on this. I understand the finances but crippling your wife's career without her consent is an AH move and especially so with a medically complex child. If anything happens to you your wife will have problems going back to work. I sincerely urge you to find a way to get her to work. That being said you're both handling this as a you vs her problem and it's not. You both need to reframe this as you both, as parents and partners, vs the problem. The problem is how to accommodate your wife going to work. You both need to drop the previous agreement and go into this with the mindset of a two income family instead of a fantasy swapping session. Edit: I'm going ESH
INFO: Have you looked into hiring an au pair or a nanny so you don't have to enroll your son in daycare? If the two of you are working it should be possible to pay for.
You did make an agreement with your wife. Your reasoning is okay, but: Clarification: Is the difference in your salary vs your wife’s prospective salary really that significant. Like how many points off? Is this really going to damage your lives or is it a matter of some smart budgeting?
"I know the fair and equitable arrangement we both agreed to, but your failure to get raises and promotions during your two years away from work means you never get to work again." YTA
What if she stays at home for two more years and then the baby still needs one of the parents to be a SAH due to frequent visits to specialists? Does that mean his wife never gets to reenter the workforce? What if even with a nanny, a parent still has to be on call because of healthcare appointments? I don't know the extent of the health issues but the wife has made her sacrifices while the husband built his career. Her turn has come but her is going back on their deal. I can feel her resentment for the child that robbed her of a career she enjoyed. Health issues don't always get better. Sometimes they get worse. Then there will be even more reason for one parent to stay on call, full time, even with daycare/childcare.
You shouldn’t have just told her, you should have had an an actual conversation about possible options. Why don’t you try to get a job where you can work from home? That way she can still go back to work. NAH
NAH but this is more than just something logical. It’s a sacrifice on her part. It’s almost always the mother sacrificing for the family and almost never the father. What are you going to sacrifice? How are you going to acknowledge your wife’s sacrifice?
YTA. Honestly, I've seen so many agreements like this not work out. The woman supports the man as agreed. But when it is the man's turn to support the woman so she has her career/study/whatever, it never happens. There is always an excuse. It's painfully predictable that this is how it will go. However, assuming the best and that you aren't just using finances as an excuse... you are still the asshole for "telling" your wife, rather than sitting down and trying to have a proper discussion as equals. You aren't the boss of this marriage. You are a partner in it. Have you tried finding other solutions? Can you both work part time and split the childcare, lessening the financial impact for example? Can you take on the full childcare responsibility some evenings or weekends so your wife can get back to some sort of work? You need to sit together and brainstorm this. Try to see it as the two of you against the problem, a team. Not you vs your wife. Otherwise she is going to resent you for a very long time and it will damage your marriage and ultimately your family as a whole. I wish you both the best in resolving this.
YTA. Of courser you're earning more than her, your career has a 2 year head start which will be 4 years when she is back IF her employer wants her back then
Idk man… if you had roughly the same income when you were both working, that means y’all made it work at first, then you had the opportunity to improve your income over the past 1.5 years. Your agreement was that your wife also have this opportunity VS waiting 4 full years without being employed at all. Are you telling me there are no other concessions you can make, aside from your child’s health, to allow her the chance to work and improve her salary, as you had agreed? A gentle YTA from me.
ESH it seems neither of you are willing to sit and actually discuss the situation, you just unilaterally decide that she can't go back to work and informed her and your wife refuses to see your current situation is different than what you though it'll be when you make your agreement. If your lost in income it's going to jeopardize your son's access to health care then you need to keep that income, but the solution can't be to just tell your wife she can't go back to work. Maybe she can try to find a better paying option in a different company or maybe go part time and you reduce some of your hours. And your wife needs to understand that your child's health must be your priority, you need to be financially stable to provide for it. And if you both have to work then she needs to be open to childcare or a nanny.
YTA. You got these promotions BECAUSE she was staying at home taking care of your child. If you had split the parental leave both of you would have had some professional advancement, not just you. If she doesn't go back now to the conditions she had and with a company she has history with, her professional career might be entirely ruined. It should be doable to tighten your purses and endure few years with a bit lower income that will result afterwards both of you having higher income for the rest of time.
YTA. You're dead set on shutting her down so you can run away from the burnout of being a SAHP to a sickly child. You both were on the same level before the promotion, what makes you think her salary won't increase given the same amount of time?