Disagreement over Maternity Leave vs. Extended Paternity Leave

[SybilRamkin]

A friend of mine, let's call him A, is having a disagreement with his DW, and I offered to canvas opinions for him on AIBU. Please be gentle with him, he's a sensitive soul!

Before the birth of their first DC, A and his DW had planned for DW to return to work after 9 months and for A to take 3 months' EPL to allow him to have some lovely bonding time with their DC. However, last week, 7 months into ML, DW announced that she would not be returning to work at 9 months after all, and that she intended to take the full 12 months herself before returning to work. A was very upset, as he'd already arranged with his work to take the time off, and was really looking forward to having 3 months as primary carer to his PFB. He attempted to reason with his DW, but she refused to agree to him taking any EPL at all - her view is that she gave birth to their DC, and so she should be allowed as much time as she wants to spend at home.

Pertinent information:

1. A and his DW earn roughly the same salary give or take c.£20 a month, and DW is intending to return to work FT.

1. A cannot afford to take 3 months of unpaid parental leave in addition to the 3 months of unpaid ML his DW plans to take. They had only budgeted for one of them not to be earning.

1. DW is not breastfeeding (hasn't since DC was 3 months old).

So MNers - does A have a moral right to be the primary carer for his DC for a few months' bonding time or is his DW right that since she gave birth to their DC her claim trumps his? And, perhaps more importantly, what should A do about this (if anything)?

Absolutely and utterly out of order and if I was A I would be rethinking my relationship. I don't think it's fair at all and the poor sod can't do anything about it.

No ikea, what my statement says doesn't mean what you have inferred from it.

But babies do need a primary attachment figure, there is loads of available research on this. The key reason mat leave was initialy extended to one year is to assist in promoting this relationship. To just swap from one primary carer to another for 3 months (followed by a further change in carer three months later) is not in the baby's interest.

And no I don't disagree that a baby benefits from having a close bond with their father but this doesn't need to be the primary care relationship. My 3 dc have all been very close to dh and totally happy being left with him from an early age. Him being their primary carer for a very short time was not necessary to achieve this.

If a is reading this I think he would do well to consider this and the implications for the babys needs of his desired plan carefully. Even if his consideration leads him to disagree, he may find it useful in understanding his wifes perspective and allow him to respect her decision as being in the baby's interest rather than focusing on the rights of one partner or another.

I did a similar thing to DH. We had agreed that when I went back to work after ten months, we would both go part time to four days per week. When it came to it, I wanted to be the part timer and I went back 3 days with DH staying full time. I did present it as a bit of a fait accompli.

DH resented it a bit but having seen how I struggle with the split thinks it might have been bad for his career.

mutley oh give over the 'baby's best interest'. It isn't being done for the baby's best interest, it's being done because the mother doesn't want to leave the baby. The baby will not suffer from being with her dad for the next 3 months, now is a good a time as any for father and baby to bond before the baby has to go into childcare.

And since we're discussing attachment theory, you surely know that it's important for a well rounded family relationship that the child isn't solely cared for by the wife and has chance to build a relationship with it's father. 9 months is the age a baby is supposed to build multiple attachments, branching out from it's primary caregiver ie the mother. If the child doesn't experience multiple attachments then by the time it goes into other childcare it could possibly end up with separation anxiety.

DW is being unfair. I don't agree that DH has an absolute moral right to the agreed 3 months though. They need to come to some sort of amicable agreement based on their specific circumstances. On the detail provided, my personal view is that it is unfair to deprive DH of the opportunity in the absence of any substantive reason other than DW's preference.

I speak from experience, I split my previous mat leave 50/50 with my DH because there was no reason not to. I can't think of any reason not to this time round either although if I'm honest I'd much rather have a full year off, but that's only my personal preference and no reason to deprive my DH of an equal opportunity.

Agree with NurseryWursery - denying a father his own paternity leave with his child is cruel and unfair, especially when it's something he has been looking forward to for so long.

I would be taking a very hard look at my marriage, especially as she doesn't seem to be entertaining the idea of any compromise.

She is being unfair not to discuss and compromise.

Could she take 10 Kit days whilst he takes holiday then her accrued holiday whilst he begins paternity leave so that they have a month or so "together"?

nursey I totally agree none of this is about the baby's interest it is about the mums interests vs the dads. My view is that it should be about the baby's interests.

Sep anxiety is generally well established by 9 months hence not a good time to change carer and therefore a change of carer will potentially be easier before 9 months or slightly later when baby had a chance to become more secure with primary attachment figure.

As I said I don't disagree in the slightest that it is important for a child to have strong bond to father for the good of family relationships. However that's not about attachment theory. Attachment theory suggests that the focus should be on a baby's relationship with their primary caregiver to enable them the confidence and security to build other healthy relationships for the rest of their life.

Separation anxiety in a young baby of 7 to 8 months plus is perfectly natural and demonstrates a strong and healthy attachment. And in transferring to another caregiver a well attached baby will be able to work past the separation anxiety fairly quickly if appropriately supported by primary caregiver.

I don't think this is all about attachment but I am clear that if the focus is the baby's attachment then it is best for the mum to stay at home for the 3 months and the dad would be wise to consider this.

She shouldn't have just decided and gone back on it.I'm going back to work when ds2 is 20 weeks, so in 11 weeks time. Dh will be taking the rest of the leave, until Sept, then going part time while i go full. It's something we agreed on, but if for any reason i changed my mind, it would be discussed with dh rather than me just telling him.

For a child to have attatchment problems they need to be emotionally neglected over a long time. If the mother has been a loving and attentive parent and the father is a loving and attentive parent and both parents have been present at the weekends/evening and will continue to be then I don't believe there is any chance that this baby will develop an attatchment disorder. If this was the case attatchment disorders would be much more common than they are.

Those who think the mother has the right to insist she has the full year of maternity leave, do you also believe that the mother should be the parent to always take a day off work when the child is ill? Why should dads be expected to share the hard bits of parenting but not the enjoyable bits?

I think the DH needs to get over himself about the 'bonding time' he will have with DC. Plenty of opportunity to still bond with the child even if he is still working- thousands of Dads have to do it.

A moral right to be a primary carer ? What tosh ! The child has a amoral right to have to loving and caring parents regardless of who is the primary carer is.

The child has a amoral right to have to loving and caring parents regardless of who is the primary carer is.

Why in the UK is it so often that the mother is automatically the primary carer? If breastfeeding isn't an issue (which in this situation it hasn't been since 3 months) why shouldn't dads be the primary carer?

I think the DH needs to get over himself about the 'bonding time' he will have with DC

Why? Why the hell should he. It's his child too. Would you say that about a woman?

ikea if that's directed at what I said I would just like to clarify I am not in any way suggesting that either course of action would cause an attachment disorder. Totally agree with what you have indicated would cause that.

However to promote the baby's attachment to its primary carer during its first year of life is in its interests.

I think it is a wrong assumption by Dad that he' needs three months off' to bond with his child.

I don't care who the primary carer is but the Dad does haven't a moral right to take 3 months off in order to do it.

There are both parents and both have an important role in that childs lifetime without their 'moral rights' being banded about.

I think he needs to look at the bigger picture of being a parent.

Dad's can be primary carers but this Dad in this case throwing his teddy put the pram because he can't get his turn is a bit perhaps blinkered to the bigger role he will have in that childs life.

I think she is being selfish. The child is both theirs and I would have been devastated if, as the father, I was not able to equally share the care.

TheChimp

It was an agreement that was made and as such should have been kept to. I think some people seem to assume men don't have feelings in regards to babies and children and instead think they should put up and shut up. This will be his ONLY chance to have a full 3 months off with his baby and I see no fault in him wanting to take advantage of that.

Since the DW hasn't had a baby before, she couldn't predict how she would feel. None of us know what their relationships is like. She could have felt pushed into agreeing to his taking 3 months paternity leave. She could be fed up with him and feel resentful about going back to work at all. There is no enforceable contract as it is a social arrangement and therefore its up to them how they react and whether they stick to it or not.

Though I suspect this question is exactly designed to find views on maternity leave sexually discriminatory against men - note the 3 months paternal leave, specially designed to give the woman longer to recover from the rigours of giving birth.

I'd further say, personally speaking, I expect a man to run around after me a bit, not the other way around. This has always happened, and my friends are the same. If I had to appease a man and do something I really didn't want to do, after going through the rigours of giving birth to his child, then all hell would break loose. It would of course cause resentment in the relationship which would fester and build. The same might happen to the man of course. In which case he maybe should find a woman who does more precisely what he wants and who will agree to him having 3 months paternal leave. When he has another baby with his new partner.

I don't think attachment issues are actually the primary thing here since we're agreed that a baby who has been with mum for 9 months and is then looked after primarily by dad for 3 months is hardly likely to be vulnerable to a diagnosis of attachment disorder [hmm ]

Without over thinking it, it may be as simple as the dad actually wanting 3 months off work to care for his child. It's a wonderful opportunity for him and the child. It'll still be only a third of what the mum has had, so why not simply let child and father have this one off chance? It seems unbelievably selfish and controlling for one parent to trump the other like this.

Of course men have feelings about their children. But bonding doesn't have to just happen when they take 3 months off. I think he also needs to understand the emotional roller coaster that his wife could be experiencing about going back to work - I am sure many if us have been there - also he can still bond with the child without taking 3 months off.

... And as for the idea of needing 9 months to get over the rigours of childbirth- oh please

Unless there has been some massive medical issue a woman will recover physically very quickly.

I feel very sorry for fathers who are clearly in relationships where they play second fiddle to their wife and whose role is to pussyfoot around her as if she's some delicate flower, and who isn't 'allowed' to care for his own child

Well out of order. Does she want her "partner" to be a parent or not? Making unilateral decisions out of the blue is treating him as neither a partner or a parent.

The wife is being horrible. She is also missing an opportunity for their family. We did this, and it was fabulous, I had sort of forgotten that it could be a grind at work (but did like having my dinner on the table when I got home). He did a fab job but also got a real appreciation of how tough it can be. Mutual respect increased.

Very selfish. The child has two parents, neither is more important.

If a partner goes back on something as serious as this and denies him the opportunity its a major breach of trust.

I love that the DH needs to get over himself and can still bond around work yet apparently the mother cant