Working mothers balance work, childcare, household chores and personal downtime. Because of this, they may view time management differently. For example, they may see it as a way of managing their time in a way that may help them decrease the overload on their time and also maintain their health and well-being. This study sought to understand the relationship that time management (planning, prioritising, and organising) and the perceived control of time have, with the multidimensional quality of life of working mothers. The study used a cross-sectional correlational design and a 12-item Time Management Practices Questionnaire, as well as the WHOQOL-BREF to obtain domain scores. The provided secondary data included 200 records that had been anonymised, and the data was subjected to descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, Pearson correlation and multiple linear regression. The mean time management score was 3.18 (SD 0.60), and the mean overall quality of life score was 53.81 (SD 13.92). Time management and its practices correlated positively and moderately with overall quality of life (r = 0.549, p < 0.001). In the adjusted model, time management practices emerged as a strong positive predictor of quality of life (B = 10.27, 95% CI 7.69– 12.84, Beta [standardised] = 0.444, p < 0.001). Weekly work hours were negatively related to quality of life, while sleep and perceived support positively predicted quality of life. The model accounted for an overall quality of life variance of 47.6% (adjusted R-squared = 0.457). The study also sought to understand time management practices and how they may impact quality of life, especially in relation to the physical, psychological and social environments. The study also sought to understand the balance working mothers make between work and family life. The accompanying outline states that the provided secondary data is simulated/illustrative and therefore should not be interpreted as data collected from human subjects, but as a study manuscript in its development. The study should be cited as it is, until real field data replaces the simulated data.