Govt stealth policy to eradicate SAH parenting

[JRHartley72]

The Guardian is reporting this morning that buried deep in Jeremy Hunt's budget last week is a new policy which will force parents on UC to return to work when their children turn three. As charities and campaigners say, it's like they just don't want us to raise our own children any more!

www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/22/jeremy-hunt-universal-credit-benefits-mothers-30-hour-weeks

Absolutely and they’re the same that moan when the services they aren’t contributing to don’t meet their expectations, yet can’t seem to make the link.

@SweetSakura

I'm sorry about the PND

Yes, I agree that this is one thing that is missed in the debate. The fact that you keep working sometimes means that you can negotiate better hours across your kids' childhoods. Otherwise, you really have to be relying on quite a lot of childcare when you do want to go to work if you can't find an employer who is supportive. Employers more likely to be supportive of someone who is already known in many professions. I am not saying that is right, just that it is how it is.

I have never heard of after school clubs in secondary so I doubt they will start implementing this. If my kids missed their bus home they would just go to the school library or canteen and do school work (supposedly) until I could come and get them. Maybe that's an option for your child too until they feel ready to make it home on their own.

I'm not having a go at all.
But if you look at media coverage in regards to raising very young children it's always the cost of child care that gets mentioned.

There isn't much say about maternity leave & pay (lets face it is the bare minimum) or god forbit about children's development.

So yeah we all complain openly about the childcare cost but not about maternity provisions.

No it’s not an option at all, there’s no bus route for her and she is not able to function on that level unfortunately. It would not be safe for her as she is far too vulnerable.

The secondary my dd will be going to has the library open til 6pm mon-thurs and also offers clubs (sports, music, drama etc) after school and during lunchtimes. So there is typically some provision.

I'm not sure how that provision extends to their SEN students. My dh teaches in an SEN secondary and they have both breakfast and after school provision 8am til 5pm so whilst not great for working hours, better than normal school hours finishes.

I agree.

Childcare is massively undervalued and underappreciated. Except by those that use it.

We need both quality and affordability. The only way to get it is government subsidy. And ideally taxation (why did I pay tax on my wage before paying childcare?). So the proposal is actually a start. It just needs proper foundations and not just window dressing.

This thread has predictably descended into a 'all working mothers are selfish and their children will suffer' vs 'sahm are lazy scroungers'. Neither of which are typically true.

Pension and student loan reduces it. Definitely on the correct code

I see - just sounded like a huge deduction, but I wasn't thinking of student loans, I'm too old to have one.

Google is that way ➡️

This

But we’re talking about three year olds here, not “helpless babies”.

Who is suggesting babies should only be spending the weekends with their parents?

I think that's just how some SAHPs like to portray the lives of children with two WOHPs.

I don't know any real families who only see their kids at weekends and on holidays.

We both worked full time when dd was a baby, but flexibly around each other. She spent 20 hours per week in the care of her wonderful nanny, which typically included around 5-6 hours per week of nap time. She spent the remaing 148 hours with me and/or DH.

I don't think she had any problem forming a secure attachment!🙄

Agreed. Most working parents I know worked at least some degree of flexibility. And most stay at home parents I know had breaks either by leaving their children with family or in nursery at least some of the time

Mine did 3 days in nursery, max 8-6 but that was rare. We worked compressed hours/weekends, so Friday they were with me and Wednesday's with dad. Factoring in leave and weekends that means they were only at nursery 30% of waking hours in a year. 15% of total hours. (and mine co-slept with me till they were 4ish).

The idea its a binary between being raised on mums hip or "raised by strangers" is a nonsense.

That’s what I think too.
Plus, I’m sure there’s no need to put your name on a nursery waiting list while ttc if the usual waiting period is 18-22 months.
The policy is for children who are 3+, you could put them on the waiting list when they are born or even when they’re around one.
I lived in another European country for a while and that was the norm in our city.
Not ideal, since there was also a shortage of nursery places, but doable.

Exactly, it isn't binary. And the vast majority of WOHMs manage to form bonds with their babies that are every bit as strong as those formed by SAHPs.

As it happens, my dd co-slept as well, but I'm sure that there are lots of parents who had their babies sleeping in cots and in their own rooms from 6 months ish. Should we be worried about their future mental health and ability to form attachments as well, I wonder?

no one seems to draw a connection between the high levels of anxiety and mental health issues in the current generation of young people, and them being one to the first generations in recent history to be cared for long periods of time in nurseries from a young age, rather than by a SAHP or other family member

Hmm I'd hazard a guess that the rigours of the school system and social media have by far the greatest adverse impacts on teenage mental health. My son can't even remember going to nursery!

Well, the highest maternal workforce participation rates are found in the Nordic countries and the Faroe Isles. I believe child MH is considered much better than the international average in these places. Of course, it's normal to get about a year off work on parental leave in these countries, so very young babies are not usually in nurseries, but then that's not the norm in the UK either.

The worst child MH is found in countries like South Korea, where mothers are pressured to give up work and spend their lives frantically organizing stuff for their kids. I don't mean that the SAH thing is actually making their children's MH bad, I just think the two things have nothing to do with each other.

Screentime and phone usage are what we should be looking at if we are worried about child MH. And frankly, if we pay parents to be at home, uptake will be highest among the least educated groups of parents, who are the least likely to be giving their children the wholesome outdoor play SAH experience. A lot of those kids will be getting a lot of TV while mum scrolls her phone.

Let's all judge each other shall we?

Just ordinary parents trying to juggle expectations.

They only want some additional minimal childcare costs so there is two incomes hence house prices can remain high.

It's politicians they are in the pockets of house builders.

But hey let's all tear each other apart online it's just what they want.

I think parents should absolutely be supported to be sahp when children are under 5.In terms of employer flexibility not impacting on future career progress, it should be valued. But that doesn't mean the country should fund it, Withregards to nd/disabled children that's what dla and carers is for. I have a disabled child, I was a sahm until he was 6 ( due to also caring for a parent and lockdown) we recieve dla and carers and now I work part time. That money tops my income up as my ds can not access childcare as he would need1:1 ratio and a nanny would charge more than my wages !

With child benefit I wonder if rather than parents of young children claiming UC it could be given as a higher amount up to age 5 then either stop at 5 or reduce

What about the issue of the many (mostly) men not paying enough CM or shirking responsibility for their children? No governmemt ever tackles that.

If a parent has children under school age I think support should remain for a parent be able to
stay at home or work part time hours, especially single parents. Not all children are sleeping well even at three and I’ve seen many parents struggling with 3/4yo behaviour.

Nursery is good for children but only to a point. Many are exhausted by the long days full time childcare brings them as they have longer days than full time parents as the parents need to travel from/to work. It wouldn’t suit all children to be away from home and SEN children often cope less well in noisy busy environments. But policy never thinks about children’s needs just the economy.

I think parents should absolutely be supported to be sahp when children are under 5.In terms of employer flexibility not impacting on future career progress, it should be valued. But that doesn't mean the country should fund it.

This. I have a friend in Germany and they can take may leave until the child is school age. Their jobs are kept open. I don’t think they get any government assistance.

If that was an option to me I would take it. I can afford to SAH without state support, DH would support me if that was my choice but I darent because I think the long term impact on my career would be too great.

In some ways I envy those who just don’t care! But obviously my future prospects are better.

i went back to work when my son was 6 months old and just 3 months after his twin sister passed away. i couldnt afford the life i wanted for him and for myself on benefits. there has to be a cut off point for being state funded to be a stay at home parent, disabilities and care needs aside, so i dont see why age 3 is so bad given funded hours and the overwhelming evidence that nursery is good for childrens socialization and understanding. i dont vote tory but i cant get over worked up about this policy tbh