Advanced search

Additional Paternity Leave - only from 20 weeks?

(14 Posts)
UrbanDad Mon 03-Sep-12 18:12:28

Thanks, OW - useful suggestion, but only have 4 weeks holiday and it's likely to be needed later in the year. Have whinged to HR and they say I can take (unpaid) parental leave to cover the interim period (thanks, CaseyShraeger).

Starlight - I know what you mean, but I don't need research (or marketing) to tell me that feeding and being with my child helps us bond. I have two children already and know that the more time I spend with them, the more I understand their ways of communicating and meet their needs better. If I worked full time, I would have less time, understand them less and not meet their needs as well. What's there to research?

Some mothers use nannies and formula from day 1 and there's nothing to stop them doing so. The way the rules are formulated, the right to paternity leave only kicks in when DW goes back to work anyway. It's just "old school" maternal bias.

oscarwilde Fri 17-Aug-12 14:52:00

Could you postpone your paternity leave (bit of a sod that though) and take two weeks holidays? That just leaves you with 1 week to sort out ?

StarlightWithAsteroid Fri 03-Aug-12 12:06:45

I do agree that it should be up to the couple. But it is also true that without a law 'some' women might be pressurised into giving up breastfeeding for lifestyle reasons, by their parter/society, and that however good expressed bm is, it is still inferior to bm received at the breast.

Fwiw, there is no research to support fathers feeding and increased bonding. It's a marketing message from formula manufacturers but has no basis.

CogPsych Thu 02-Aug-12 00:40:01


Some couples think it is equally important for the father to feed the baby expressed milk as it is for the mother to breastfeed, for the sake of the father's bond with their baby.

It should be up to the couple.

Some women don't breastfeed at all, and they still cannot choose to have their partner take paternity leave earlier.

StarlightWithAsteroid Wed 25-Jul-12 23:58:07

It was never questioned by the WHO. That article is misleading.

Also, bottle-feeding whatever is STILL not the physiological norm and the implication that it could be removes the mothers protection and potentially her and her baby's right to be bf.

UrbanDad Wed 25-Jul-12 23:16:06

All I'm saying is it shouldn't be black-and-white - it should be down to the parents to agree what is the right sharing arrangement rather than have it dictated to them.

This "breastfeeding only for 6 months" mantra has been questioned by the WHO for some time. When we had our last DC, we gave mashed banana, pear and baby rice (all mixed in with expressed milk) from 4 months (which was the guideline from - admittedly Australian - baby rice packet). Anyway, if the child is not ready for solids, I can bottle-feed expressed milk (and our DCs both alternated between the two from day zero without a problem).

CaseyShraeger Tue 24-Jul-12 00:56:46

But 20 weeks is a bit less than 5 months, not 6 months, so it doesn't really fit the guidelines. It's an odd number to have picked on - I almost wonder whether an early draft said 26 weeks (to fit in with guidelines) and then someone decided to knock it diwn a bit ("Mmm, 20 is a nice round number...") so that it ended up neither one thing nor the other.

Scarredbutnotbroken Tue 24-Jul-12 00:35:06

It's to fit in with NHS guidelines surely - bf to 6 months and no solids until then. I'm actually quite impressed I didn't know this stipulation was there!

CaseyShraeger Tue 24-Jul-12 00:28:11

If you are employed, you could quite possibly take that 5 weeks as Parental Leave rather than APL. That would probably be unpaid unless your employer has a paid Parental Leave policy, though.

StarlightWithAsteroid Tue 24-Jul-12 00:18:27

Solids are advised at 6 months!

However, even one bottle a month is a deviation from the biological/physiological norm.

UrbanDad Tue 24-Jul-12 00:10:32

I can see the 6 months / breastfeeding thing for mums going back to work full-time, on a case by case basis, but surely that's for them to work out with their partner depending on how it works for them. It's a totally arbitrary blanket rule. DW bounced back pretty well the last couple of times and she's only going back to work for a couple of days part-time each week. I can feed DK expressed milk from a bottle several times a day (and by the time kids are 4 months old, they are eating mashed-up goo during the day anyway). It's unnecessary and it comprehensively mangles our plans for shared childcare. I shall write to my MP!

StarlightWithAsteroid Mon 23-Jul-12 23:38:45

Fwiw, it took me 6 months to recover enough to be able to resume life normally. I had a text book birth but it left me very weak.

StarlightWithAsteroid Mon 23-Jul-12 23:37:54

It's to protect the mother, her recovery from the birth, and the breastfeeding relationship.

UrbanDad Mon 23-Jul-12 23:36:45

I am thinking of sharing maternity leave with DW for new kid due in Oct under new Additional Paternity Leave rules. Does anyone have experience of the rule that the leave "can only be taken between 20 weeks and one year after your child is born". What clown put that rule in? DW wants to go back 15 weeks after birth but if I cannot take the leave until 20 weeks after, what are we going to about the 5 weeks inbetween?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now