SAHM surrogate

Welcome to Expect Miracles. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

SAHM surrogate; pros vs cons
Topic Started: Jul 7 2008, 04:12 AM (297 Views)
DearIP	Jul 7 2008, 04:12 AM Post #1
Advanced Member Posts: 132 Group: WIMs Member #39 Joined: June 6, 2008	What are the thoughts on a SAHM as a surro? Does this make her more appealing or less? Does it make you think she in this for the money more than a working surro? Is there really not much difference, other than it just means lost wages won't have to be paid? I thought I had this all figured out, but now I'm not so sure. Thanks for the replies. Cyn



colleenz	Jul 7 2008, 04:38 AM Post #2
Advanced Member Posts: 292 Group: V.IP Member #13 Joined: May 24, 2008	A SAHM might not have lost wages, but wouldn't that be countered by needing more child care? I would not assume a SAHM is doing this just for the money.



DearIP	Jul 7 2008, 05:05 AM Post #3
Advanced Member Posts: 132 Group: WIMs Member #39 Joined: June 6, 2008	An IM wants to add: While I assumed my surrogate would be able to be more flexible if she was on bedrest as a SAHM, that was not the case. Midway through the journey, I realized that the couple seemed to be against anyone watching their kids but themselves... no relatives or others helping out. That made our journey very stressful. We were low comp, so the agreement was that I would pitch in and help if there was bedrest. That turned out to be impossible since no one else could watch the kids and the DH decided that he could take off work and stay home with the kids and I would be responsible for his paychecks. We did the best we could, but that hadn't been our agreement and I don't think I should have been able to figure that out ahead of time. I guess my warning would be for surros to assume you will have bedrest (not to assume the pregnancy will be problem free, cause the others were) and for IPs to make sure the surro has a definate plan in place for what happens with kids in case of bedrest.



YoMama	Jul 7 2008, 05:11 AM Post #4
Advanced Member Posts: 590 Group: WIMs Member #23 Joined: May 30, 2008	Definately not make me think they are doing it for the money. I think most SAHM today are doing it out of sacrifice for their kids and family. So to me there is a ring of less 'me me me me'. Few can be a 'me me me me' person and stay at home with kids everyday. I have less worries about conflicts from peers or bosses that might create insurance bumps or stressors. Mostly if the family's insurance is coming from DH, there are less chances of any frustrations from a boss... cause they probably won't even know. It should be easier to arrange for daycare assistance if there is a bedrest situation than if work 'demands' the surrogate to continue... for example they won't give the leave with pay or they are afraid if they leave for a couple of months they will loose their job. I might be worried that if the OB said take it easy for a week, they wouldn't want to use their vacation time up and might keep on a fast pace with work. As for a SAHM though, I would recommend that both sides come up with a 'take it easy' plan if their are toddlers or smaller kids. I think surros try to save money for the IPs, but if lifting is a no no, maybe the best peace of mind would come if both agree ahead of time to have someone come in and pitch in around the house and with the kids during that time. That can be hard to have someone 'invade' your house, but peace of mind that no one pushed further than they should is way more valuable.



Christy	Jul 7 2008, 06:25 AM Post #5
ACK Posts: 2,490 Group: WIMs Member #1 Joined: May 3, 2008	SAHM is a bonus to me. I like the flexibility it should allow for going to appointments and a lower stress life when needed. I don't see a SAHM any more or less in it for the money than someone who works. If bed rest comes up and they have no access to child care it could be just as expensive as lost wages. Unless she has a great network of family and friends it would work out the same to me.



tiggermom	Jul 7 2008, 06:41 AM Post #6
Advanced Member Posts: 897 Group: WIMs Member #15 Joined: May 26, 2008	A SAHM mom was one of the things I was looking for in a surro just for the reasons most have already stated. More flexibility with appointments, no risk to a job, no lost wages to pay. I also wasn't comfortable with a surro that has very young children that need to be carried around and can't be left to play or semi-take care of themselves if bedrest is involved. Regardless of what is needed, the surro has to make sure her children are cared for properly and a toddler is not going to understand why mommy can't pick him/her up and regardless of what the surro says, the IM should expect it's going to happen unless she is there 24/7. I plan should definately be in place and discussed before hand how child care would be taken care of. I would be leary of working with someone that will not let anyone except her or her DH take care of the children. If there is long term bedrest or even one that involves a long hospital stay that could definately be a problem. The DH job could be put at risk and that would make more stress for everyone, the surro for their financial future and the IPs for wages that could add up to an astronomical amount and the risk of losing the health insurance if the DH is off work toolong. I do find it hard to believe that there is absolutely no one that would help care for the children if they are being paid. Of course I have never had to pay a family member to watch my children but I see lots of surros that say they must pay even grandparents to babysit.



momto2cuties	Jul 7 2008, 08:28 AM Post #7
Advanced Member Posts: 558 Group: V.IP Member #78 Joined: July 1, 2008	It doesn't matter to me if my surro is a SAHM. I think I'd prefer it just because I think she could rest more if needed. My surro works from home so to me that's the same. I think a SAHM wouldn't be doing it for the money because obviously they can afford for her to stay at home. So I would look at that like they don't need the money.



CYN	Jul 7 2008, 10:04 AM Post #8
It's twins for the twins! Posts: 456 Group: Registered Member #29 Joined: June 4, 2008	Thank you ladies for the continued honesty in all of your responses. I do appreciate them all.



skyofstars236	Jul 7 2008, 10:07 AM Post #9
Keeper of the Cookies! Posts: 1,114 Group: Guests Member #3 Joined: May 23, 2008	It didn't bother me at all that my FTS and my current GS are both SAHM. I felt it would make scheduling appointments easier and there were no lost wages fees so that was nice. I would like to state for the record your contract needs to clearly define levels of bedrest though. Full blown bed rest, modified bed rest or modified activity levels. Just so nothing comes as a shock later on down the road. As we all know it can happen.



extrachoc453	Jul 8 2008, 03:37 PM Post #10
Advanced Member Posts: 452 Group: V.IP Member #7 Joined: May 23, 2008	I love the fact that our TS is a SAHM, although she works from home as do I, I am a SAHM, that happens to have a job on the side. I really feel that pregnancy can be difficult at times and the fact that she really does not have to worry about losing job because of her obligations to us makes me feel less that we could somehow harm her family in some way, even inadvertantly by feeling ill for the 1st tri and not feeling up to going to work.... I would feel horrible if she lost her job because she was sick from taking care of our baby. So her being a SAHM was definitely something we looked for.


« Previous Topic · Dear IP · Next Topic »