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

I'll believe that when I see it. And by it, I mean enough to actually get people to do the wraparound care jobs.

Michellescarn

That wasn't the point I was making.

The erosion of staying at home as being seen as an important job, or one that people can afford to do. Looking after young children is hard, but important. And no-one seems to be considering the little ones needs. Ie the importance of attachment.

When the child turns THREE of course the parent should return to work if in receipt of UC!

@JRHartley72 but you CAN stay at home if you like, you can even stay until they're 25 if you fancy

BUT don't expect the taxpayer and those WORKING to pay for it!

The entitlement in your post and genuine shock at someone with a three year old being made to work is astonishing

But it kicks in at age three

Posters like this and this attitude is why many people vote Tory tbh.

Labour ENCOURAGES this type of attitude!

Agreed, we've devalued it to the point that even most mothers don't see it as the best use of their time.

And 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.

And yes, women have always worked, especially poorer women who've had little choice. But it's only been in recent decades that they've done when their children were tiny, or for such long hours, out of the home, and without family support, and it's having an impact.

I'm not blaming mothers for this. I honestly believe the vast majority are doing our absolute best for our children in increasingly difficult circumstances. I'm blaming society and its governments for placing so little value on mothering, and for making those circumstances so difficult.

Fair enough really, not many people can afford to remain off work until their child is 3- why should someone on benefits be afforded more choice around this than someone who works? Unless it should be rolled out to everyone in that you can be funded by the state until your child is at school to stay with them? You shouldn't be worse off for working, but not sure how it would be financed to give all women this chance. Perhaps people will think more carefully about how many children they can afford, we have just one as although we are fortunate to doing well financially we don't want to be in a position in the future if things change where we struggle. I agree everyone should be able to have children, but plenty of people choose one for financial reasons- its not cruel to suggest this could be the case for others.

Agreed, we've devalued it to the point that even most mothers don't see it as the best use of their time.

You need to let women make decisions without this judgement.

People will still be able to choose not to work until their child is 3 though, that's 3 x as long as a lot of families can afford- are we supposed to be up in arms about something that seems pretty fair?

"You need to let women make decisions without this judgement"

Women can, and will, make whatever decisions they want, but in the vast majority of cases the best person to care for a baby, at least as far as the baby is concerned, is its mother.

You can do what you'd like as long as you pay for it.

Seems fair enough to me.

I'm baffled that in the UK, many people are conditioned to think others should pay for the lifestyle they want.

It's weird.

Long thread and I've not read it all so very sorry if this has already been answered - but wasn't this the case anyway? After your youngest child is three you've always been expected to look for work haven't you?

Or have I got that wrong?

Where is the evidence that the increase in mental health issues is directly linked to society having fewer SAHPs? Perhaps nobody is making that link because, actually, there is no evidence. I can see that it might suit your narrative to claim that there is a connection, but I haven't seen any reliable studies to back that up, and it certainly doesn't correlate with what I see in the world around me. Thinking of my dd's peer group, the kids who had SAHPs when they were little are no happier, well adjusted or mentally healthy as young adults than the kids who had parents working full time.

And yes, attachment is hugely important for young children, but that doesn't mean that having a SAHP is the only way in which secure attachments can be formed.

I'm sorry, but the reality just doesn't back up what you're saying.

We have maternity leave for this. And this policy kicks in age at age three, old enough to be outside studies in pp.

Women can decide to return after ML, other women doing the aren’t you terrible line doesn’t wash.

We don’t need to go back to heavy judgement re women who choose to work.

Ignore me. Didn't read the article properly. I get it now!

My mother was utterly miserable as a SAHP. Believe me, it was not best for me to be looked after by someone who desperately wanted more from life.

Are you sure there is a connection between poor mental health and working parents? I'm from Sweden where we don't really have SAHMs/housewives because childcare is practically free and I don't think we have a huge problem with mentally unwell kids/youths, especially not compared to the UK. 61% of 16-24 year olds in the UK have depression symptoms, compared to around 15% in Sweden.

I agree that the mental health issues are important to tackle, but using childcare for your kids is not the enemy here.

@Busybutbored @Quveas

The research isn't that straightforward - it's linked to a number of social-economic factors and education of the primary care giver.

Studies show for more educated primary caregivers or higher socio-economic status, the best position for their baby is to be looked after by them 1 on 1 for the first three years of life.

For less educated primary care givers or of lower socio-economic status, those babies end up being very far behind by the age of 3 if they don't attend nursery, which is why the government gives free hours to babies from deprived areas even though many have SAHMs!

So no one can't generalise and say nursery or being at home is better than the other, it really depends on who the primary care giver is, if kid is being stimulated, exposed to a wide vocabulary or being plonked in front of the tv with few stimulating toys or activities...

THIS!!!

The entitlement is baffling and one of the reasons I will never vote Labour because this is an attitude that they encourage

It's very common unfortunately. Then they complain where there is no money for health care, schools and end up with basically no money left in the state pension pot because so many people have opted out of working/contributing.

I had PND with each baby which lifted when I went back to work each time. Admittedly I worked 4 days and their dad had them one day, so they were only in nursery 3 days a week. but that was better for everyone. My babies didn't want me depressed and suicidal. Also as a result of me working we were able to buy a nice home for them. If not we would have been stuck in a small rented house.

And as a result of my career progressing I was able to switch to school hours when they started school, working flexibly around the children.

Plus I did still care for them, on my days off, every morning, every night, whenever they were ill, through holidays. I was absolutely still their primary carer and they are happy thriving children and teens now.

Ok, so if your partner works and earns, you can claim benefits to take care of your child, so long as your partner doesn't earn enough that they could pay for you to do this? This is news to me, would have been fantastic. I went back to work and put DS in nursery when I didn't want to because we couldn't afford to live on one salary.

I can’t help but agree that a school aged child does not need a stay at home parent.

Does that extend to secondary?
I have one in primary but my eldest is 11 who has autism and adhd, she isn’t eligible for transport as no ehcp and she can’t wait around the town for two hours on her own for one of us to pick her up as it wouldn’t be safe.