Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to wonder why you'd have a child and then leave it for 5 days a week

236 replies

incredulousonlooker · 28/03/2012 12:29

and I don't mean leave it in a nursery while you're at work type thing.
I mean actually LEAVE it on a Sunday night and come back on Friday.

She's only 4 months old ffs. It seems very wrong to me.

OP posts:
MissKeithLemon · 28/03/2012 14:59

LtEve she is currently in Tidworth area, not sure if its officers only or what the crack is! But, was just saying because some people were suggesting its a ridiculous notion, when it isn't! (But then my sis lols at my mortgage too, her and bil rent out a flat they own in london which earns them double what they pay to rent their MQ - they rent the flat out, through an agency, to the army!! - my sis could fall in a bucket of shit and jump out sucking her thumb!)

That being said, I don't understand why someone (either parent) would spend so little time with their almost new born, so I think that if we've decided that being judgey is actually ok on this thread then I think - OP - YANBU.Smile

GrahamTribe · 28/03/2012 15:01

incredulousonlooker, are you related to the mother by any chance?

MissKeithLemon · 28/03/2012 15:06

I also don't think that just because someone 'is in the forces' that it makes them any better of a person than they were before iyswim?

Many good & great people join the forces. Also, many borderline employable youngsters are given a chance by the forces when no-one else will have them. If they don't change attitude though, they will leave the forces and still be unemployable when they leave.

If a selfish cow who values her career/money/single life over and above the needs of her baby/parents, she will still be so if it is the army/navy/airforce that are paying her salary rather than tesco's/any other comapny.

OhdearNigel · 28/03/2012 15:08

One thing I don't understand is why she has chosen to go back to work so early. As a member of the Forces she is entitled to 6 months paid maternity leave.

I think the "need to work" is a red herring here. Maybe she actually just doesn't want to deal with her baby and work is a convenient way to get out fo the daily grind of childrearing. Not everyone is mother of the year.

MissKeithLemon · 28/03/2012 15:09

graham I wondered this too. It sounds as though she could be! (Op may be being judgey but she was careful not to spill details which may blow cover!)

OP - if you have a sister doing this then I'd have a word! I'm assuming that if it is a sister then it is in fact YOUR parents being put on?? If its just someone you know than i'd leave well alone and judge from afar

LtEveDallas · 28/03/2012 15:11

Thanks MissKeith, I was genuinely curious. There was nothing like that available when I was in Tidworth, but then that was years ago - and Tid/Bul is bloody huge now. Excellent facility for the squaddies serving there - but I bet your sis will have a shock when she moves!

LtEveDallas · 28/03/2012 15:14

The mother in the OP may have started her maternity leave early. She can have 6 months on full pay, so if she left 2 months pre birth (which she may have been forced to do) then she has to go back 4 months post birth.

GrahamTribe · 28/03/2012 15:15

MissKeith if a sister of mine "had a word" about my lifestyle choices I'd tell her to go fuck herself and keep her opinons to herself! I hope that the mother in the OP would do the same.

LtEveDallas · 28/03/2012 15:16

Oh and MissKeith - re your 'selfish cow' paragraph, did you read my post about the pension etc? It would be bloody foolish to give that up, absolutely barking, not selfish.

So judging from afar if you dont know the full facts is pretty daft.

OhdearNigel · 28/03/2012 15:18

GrahamTribe - if the female in question is the OPs sister then her "lifestyle choices" (didn't realise that bringing up your own children is now a lifestyle choice btw) are her business considering that they directly impact on the health and wellbeing of her parents.

squidworth · 28/03/2012 15:19

She may of gone back to work early as she has spoken to the people who organise post and she choose the best of the bad bunch which meant going back the truth is we have no idea. For all we know in a few years time she may be able to pay her mortgage off and have a great pension. I am mortgage free and we get a pension payment every month which equal a good life for us and yes my dp missed out on ds1 early years but we would not change that ESP in the current climate.

lesley33 · 28/03/2012 15:23

And what aboiut the father? Shouldn't he take some responsibility in looking after his own child?

GrahamTribe · 28/03/2012 15:29

Nigel, okay, her choice of career, childcare, where she live and how she lives, if you prefer. "Lifestyle choices" was just easier to type (though surely one's choice of career etc etc are part of one's lifestyle??). But no matter. The OP has said that the GP's are "elderly", whatever that means to the OP, your view and mine of elderly might be different, and that she thinks they would like a break. I don't see where their health is cited as an issue? And if the GPs do have issues, not just those projected by the OP, surely it's for them to address those issues with their daughter and son in law and not for the OP/the mother's sister or other relative, you or I to criticise or judge the mother's choices.

The PO asked if she is BU to wonder why you'd have a child and then leave "it" for 5 days a week yet she has given us all the reasons why, valid ones, according to those who are in the Forces themselves.

lesley33 · 28/03/2012 15:32

Yes valid ones why women in forces might leave her baby. Not valid ones why father doesn't look after his own child imo.

GrahamTribe · 28/03/2012 15:32

Oh hell. I just read my typo. The Post Office might have asked if it was BU I guess but it's far more likely that the OP did.

lesley33 · 28/03/2012 15:33

The Post Office was VVU Grin

GrahamTribe · 28/03/2012 15:38

The Post Office always damn well is ime! Grin

LtEveDallas · 28/03/2012 15:39

I agree that the father should be looking after the child - but again, there are so many reasons why he may not be able to, or may not want to, or may not be trusted to, that we can't really have an opinion on it TBH.

(and yes, I think the OP sounds related to the mother as well - sour grapes maybe)

lesley33 · 28/03/2012 15:48

But would you want a relationship with a man who didn't want to or couldn't be trusted to look after his own child?

LtEveDallas · 28/03/2012 15:55

Well no, but maybe the mother didn't know that until the child was born? Maybe the first time he picked the baby up he dropped 'it' Grin. Maybe it's the mother being PFB and not trusting him. Maybe he's the forgetful professor type that would forget to feed the baby. Maybe the ILs are controlling, demanded to look after the child and mother is under the thumb. Maybe mother is controlling and wont let the father look after his own child.

Or maybe he really is a feckwit and can't be bothered.

I don't know. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors?

Original poster
incredulousonlooker · 28/03/2012 15:56

Mother is very financially secure and owns own house. She could rent this house out and then get a private rent near to work in order to have child and partner with her if the MQs aren't good enough Hmm. Why couldn't father look after baby full time as others have suggested, if forces life is so prohibitive and childcare in army areas so much more expensive than normal (although I'm yet to be convinced of this!)? Being in the forces is a red herring - they have other options which could work better for everyone particularly the child and GPs, but it would mean being saddled with the responsibility of bringing up their own child Hmm

OP posts:
GrahamTribe · 28/03/2012 16:00

So are you related to this mother or the child, incredulousonlooker?

empirestateofmind · 28/03/2012 16:06

Children are only small for a short time and the advantages longer term for the family of this arrangement are huge.

Both parents have jobs and are paying into pensions- and in years to come the child has good role models and the family is solvent.

If the grandparents are willing and able to care for the child five days a week for a few years then I think it is great and good luck to them all. The child is loved and well cared for. What is the problem?

So just because it is a bit of a juggle for five years do people really think this couple shouldn't have a baby who will bring them joy for the next fifty years?

This family are looking long term and I applaud them for that.

OP mind your own business; I hope you have thought about your own career and prospects as much as this family has.

OhdearNigel · 28/03/2012 16:12

what is the problem ?

well, for a start children don't tend to think "Mummy's thinking long-term about our solvency". they think "Mummy & Daddy don't want me".

The little girl will develop a parental bond with her grandparents and won't it be lovely for her when Mummy and Daddy decide that they want her to live with them and she is taken away from those she views as her parents

Bringing up happy, adjusted and well-attached children is everyones business.

OhdearNigel · 28/03/2012 16:14

None of you on this thread going on about how it's fine only seem to be seeing things from the parents perspective. Not the grandparents' perspective and certainly not the baby's. Do you think the GPs had a say or just got dumped with the scenario with no option but to go along with it ?

As tethersend pointed out upthread, can you imagine this scenario being allowed to happen in care ?