have no choice to return but what pattern in your opinion would be better for my children...

[helsi]

they will go to childminder hopefully if I can find one but out of the (possible) 24 hours per week I will be doing shall I do - 3 full days at 8hrs? or 4 days of 6 hours or 5 days of 4.8 hours?

this is all theorectical at the moment but just want to gauge opinions.

many thanks

[sandyballs]

I would say 3 full days. Once you've made the effort to get the kids to childminder and get yourself to work you may as well stay there and get on with it. Then you can have 2 clear days at home. I do 3 days a week and it works well. You really don't want 5 days when you're rushing themselves and yourself out the house.

[Feistybird]

Agree with Sandy

[CarlyP]

3 full days is better i tihnk. less confusing and less hassle for them and you.

[Enid]

I like doing 4 days of 5 hours as it means i can finish early enough to pick dd1 up from school every day (I used to do 2.5 days)

[helsi]

I see what you mean but not sure if I could bear to be at work from 9.30 to 5.30 and not seeing children till about 6.00pm. whereas with 5 days I was thinking that I could start at 9.30 and be home for 2.30ish. Work is not that important to me and the would have to give me enough work to just do in the time I am there.

goodness -decisions decisions.

[Northerner]

I do 24 hours over 3 full days, I'm the opposite to you - I couldn't bear to do it over 5 days. Agree with sandy, once at work it's better to get on with it. Then you've got 3 days for work mode and 4 days at home.

Also, you can't do much with your kids after 3.00pm, at least thsi way yuo'd have 4 full days to ahve fun with them.

[sandyballs]

How old are they Helsi?

[helsi]

at the moment 3.5yo and youngest is 6 weeks. Eldest goes to nursery in the mornings from Sept until 11.30.

[edam]

I'd agree with Sandy first, then put four days as option two. Have you worked at all since having the kids? I think you might find just getting out of the house every morning and making sure you are all on time for CM/work is quite stressful - there's always a lost shoe, or a traffic jam or train delays to muck up one part of the process. And then you have the same rigmarole all over again on the way back!

Having worked full-time, four days plus one at home and currently on three days (self-employed, sometimes from home, sometimes commuting), three days has been much the best option.

[sandyballs]

Getting home at 2.30 5 days a week does not give you much time really, before you know it you'll be into the tea, bed, bath routine. With 2 clear days you can all go out and have fun.

[blueshoes]

I do 5 days reduced hours 0830 to 1500. Started out this way because dd was still breastfeeding (refused bottles) and I wanted to minimise separation time. But even after dd was weaned, I continued because it worked for me. I think it is feasible if your commute is not that bad. Mine is about 34 to 40 minutes door-to-door on a train.

It is a struggle every morning to get dd out of the house for the drop off/commute. But then again, dd (toddler) is still so much hard work I see work as a refuge. Would shudder at having to entertain the madam for a full day.

When dd starts school, I will have time to supervise homework everyday.

[Bozza]

I would go for the 3 full days. It's what I did when mine were this age and I still am (they are 5 and 2 now). I may try and spread the hours once they are both at school. But still looking at 4 days rather than 5.

[serenity]

I would do the three full days. I used to do 5 half days, but found that I never had time to do anything, and changed it to 2.5 days - it worked out far better. I could get more done at work, and then my days at home were totally mine and DSs. The 5 short days I think is ideal when all your children are in school.

Would you have the opportunity to change if you tried one set of hours and it didn't work out?

[serenity]

I should say that once I had more than one I gave up working during the day (childcare costs/stress) and now work late evenings, very tiring but I'm home all day. Once DD is in reception (sept 2008) I'm going to look for that mythical short hours/term time only job

[nicnack2]

helsi why dont you try the 3 day one but do wed,thur,fri, mond,tue,wed the you would have a week off.

[gigwig]

I think 3 full days then you have 2 full days at home. I did 5 shorter days (over at 21 hour week) for a time - found that I could never do anything much in the afternoons at home with DS and I really missed the full days at home.

When at school though may be possibly better to do shorter days.

[Littlefish]

I went back for 3 days per week, with my dd at the childminder from 8.30am - 5.30pm. I love the fact that I have two whole days with her each week and plan lots of lovely things to do! Do your days have to be consecutive, or could you do, say, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, which would mean you were not away from them for more than 2 days at a time and you would also have a long weekend every week.

My sister has always worked 4 shorter days (8.30 - 2.30) and then picks her boys up from the childminder because their most clingy time of the day was always about 3.30pm, so she is back with them by this time.

[annh]

Would agree with 3 full days (I do four at the moment). Particularly as your children get older (assume 3.5 yr old will start school in '07)you will find that there will be more and more occasions when you would like to go to school for class assemblies/helping in class/sports day etc. Having 2 days free, particularly if you choose carefully, will mean far less time off work for this kind of thing! Also I think it would be far less stressful to be doing the out-of-the-house routine fewer days a week. Of course, once school starts you will have to be out by a certain time anyway but I do look forward to Fridays when I can leave the breakfast dishes on the table knowing that I will be back in 30 mins to clear up.

[crunchie]

Also with the short days, doing 5 days people will expect you to work as if you are full time, therefore you will find it hard to leave work early all the time. WIth 3 full days youwill leave atthe same time as someone else and it wouldn't be so difficult. Lastly work will then not expect you to work a 40 hour week in 24 hrs and you will be able to take lunch breaks etc, which is the working mummy's ME time and absolutely vital. It is teh time I go to teh gym or shop or have a glass of wine in peace :)

[Pastarito]

3 full days - definitely.

[Bozza]

crunchie makes good points. Also less time spent commuting. If your commute is 30 mins that is 3 hours per week instead of 5. Lunch hours great for getting errands done. Can cook double on days not working. That sort of thing.

[EmmaKB]

Definitely 3 full days. I used to do 2 full days Monday and Wdnesday and 9 until 2.30 on Thursday. I found that the spare time on a Thursday was useless by the time I collected dd from minder etc didn't have time to start anything major before starting to prepare meals.

[helsi]

having looked at prices - it seems that I will be paying half my wage in childcare fees. What I will be left with I could probably stay at hme and work evenings and still earn the same as what I'll be left with.

OMG - this is making me ill thinking about it all!!

[mrsbang]

I do five x five hour days, because I needed some routine (and work around DH's shifts and eventually the schoolrun.)

Out of choice I would do four days. Three days wouldn't suit me, purely cos of the shifts and schoolrun, but can see the benefits depending on childcare.

[MissChief]

depends on yr job, but for mine I know I'd just end up doing f/t equivalent if I showed my face 5 days a week!
3 full days definitely then can forget work on yr 2 days "off".