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)?

*is

Excellent post nurseywursey.

It's so depressing to see women undermining the whole concept of equity in relationships and family dynamics.

As for the issue of only knowing half the story.. Well, we only see one side of any post on MN. But it's interesting that its only on a thread like this, that people start shouting about it and making all sorts of assumptions about what might be the back story

olgaga
"Like it or not, it's her decision to make whether she returns after 9 months, 12 months, to the same job, or a new job on reduced hours or not at all."

You went further than just ML. I am just saying its not just her choice alone whether she returns on reduced hours or not at all if it impacts on the whole family.

There is almost certainly another side to this situation but it should be a properly discussed decision taking into account the needs of the whole family rather than any one person's decision.

No-one has said men & women are the same in the context of childbirth, what a ridiculous idea! This couple's proposal was that the woman should take nine months off work, while he takes three. Are people so numerically challenged that they think 9=3?!

When you're talking about playing rights off against each other in a couple relationship, that relationship's pretty much dead. With rights come responsibilities, and it looks as though DW is abrogating hers.

To be fair, Natasha, only a few posters have claimed SINBU. Those few have, inevitably, been taken as "all" by certain members who like to paint MN as reverse sexist whenever they see an opportunity

Is it an option for her to have 12 months and when she goes back for him to have his 3 months, stagger rather than concurrent?

I was pretty much main carer for my DC (other than my eldest as I worked f/t) when they were very small (breastfed till 11 months) and with them very often whereas DH was at work. Also a SAHM for younger 4. Doesn't mean that DH is not close to DC. In fact he does pretty much everything I do and has them on his own loads (I have always studied so have tutorials/exams etc). Just because you may be in favour of mothers choosing what to do with their maternity leave doesn't mean you abhor fathers getting involved whatsoever! Nor does splitting you family work/home between you in a way that suits your family (eg some choosing to have SAHM and working Dad) make you 'unequal'. You can still be equal whilst doing different things!

No, Ludways it's not. Unless his employer gives him a 3 month sabbatical which of course they are not obliged to do.

I think it is unfair to expect the dh to be a flawless parent right from the start, I made mistakes at the beginning of maternity leave forgetting baby wipes or forgetting to change ds's nappy lots of people do. You only have to read a few threads on mumsnet where a baby has rolled off the changing table or sofa and lots of people reply saying oh yes all babies fall off something don't worry they tend to bounce.

The dh probably would make some mistakes as anyone starting something new does but I'm sure he will learn in the same way that mothers learn, over time.

Well, we only see one side of any post on MN. But it's interesting that its only on a thread like this, that people start shouting about it and making all sorts of assumptions about what might be the back story Because it's coming from a third party who is a friend of A. I think people often ask about a back story on many threads, it's not unique to this sort of topic. If it was A or DW posting from their view point them it would be different as it would be a first hand account.

There are also people on both sides of the argument who are probably projecting on this thread, and I do include myself in that as I wasn't ready to go back at nine months as I had had quite severe PND. Only family and very close friends really knew and my ex was pretty dismissive of it. The DW has been give a bit of a battering by some posters and it's only A's version of things through the OP that have been heard. His DW hasn't had her side put across at all so I think it's pretty normal to consider there could be more to this, nothing to do with sexism at all.

Totally agree Kelly.

Plus there are some things in the OP which just seem very unlikely - like the idea that the DW hasn't given any reasons for why she wants the extra 3 months other than "because she gave birth". I bet she has given plenty of reasons.

Nursey you say that the only two good reasons I could see is 1. if she were breastfeeding or 2. if she had a physical or mental condition that impedes here from returning to work.

What about the reason I and others have suggested: she has realised that the first 9 months were hard slog, the last 3 months are going to be the fun bit (and summer), and she's decided it is fair that she gets to have the fun bit in return for having done the hard slog. Is that a good enough reason in your eyes or not?

No, because she hasn't offered to rearrange the split; she's just decided she's having it all.

What if the husband feels like he's had a pretty hard slog for the last 9 months too? He's had to go to work every day with the pressure of reduced family finances - maternity pay is usually far less than full pay! Maybe he's been looking forward to the 3 months with his child as some sort of 'payback' for his hard slog!

' she's just decided she's having it all.'

All of her own maternity leave? If a mother decided to transfer some of her leave to the father then that is one thing. But nobody should be made to feel selfish for having all of their own maternity leave!

It's selfish because she's reneged on her agreement with her husband, without discussion. She even refused a reduction to two months.

During her additional time off, she's relying on him to keep earning (I know this because OP says they can't afford to extend an extra 3 months.) Yes, she's acting selfishly.

but maternity leave is changing into shared leave.

Thank you for all the replies. A and his DW have read this thread together, and discussed the issues raised - A has promised to update later.

For those who were asking about DW's reasoning for staying at home, she says (and is happy for me to share) that the thought of leaving her DC and going back to work is literally breaking her heart, and she can't bear to do it any earlier than she absolutely has to.

I breastfed for nearly a year with my last marymawestacott but still wouldnt of said dh wasnt equal and I still went out a lot and just expressed. We have a few children now but I never worry that dh cant cope with any of it. I think its very important mums and dads are just as capable.

I have to admit, while I logically accept that she IBU, I do have some sympathy.

My DH and I are planning a similar arrangement, but we really have no idea how we will feel when it comes down to it. Maybe I'll want the full year. Maybe I'll want to go back to work after 6 months. Maybe he'll be terrified at the idea of a long period off when faced with it.

At the moment it seems like the ideal situation... but I'd hesitate to commit to it 100%, and DH understands that. I do agree that it's a decision that needs to be made together though.

Thanks for updating OP.
So yes, it is essentially a selfish reason- she doesn't want to lose any of the leave so she's done a U turn on the earlier agreement- he can just go hang.

Those who keep pointing out the technicality of it being her leave are spectacularly missing the point, which is she agreed to transfer the final 3 months, which has meant her DH has quite naturally been preparing for this and looking forward to it. Presumably his workplace have been preparing to.

Let's just hope for his sake she doesn't do another unilateral u turn in 3 months and decide she doesn't want to go back to work at all, leaving him with sole earning responsibility

Agree with friend A. DW is being very unreasonable. So under the original plan, she got 75% of the time with pfb, he got 25%. Under her new plan, she gets 100% and him none. Very unfair on her part as even under the original plan she still had 6 months more than him. Surely that cancels out any 'trump card' she claims to have over having given birth to the child which isn't exactly something that he could have done.

Well she is entitled to all of her ML, but if I've understood, she's relying on her husband's earnings for the last three months?

And he can only have the three months if she goes back to work?

For those who were asking about DW's reasoning for staying at home, she says (and is happy for me to share) that the thought of leaving her DC and going back to work is literally breaking her heart, and she can't bear to do it any earlier than she absolutely has to.

That is absolutely understandable and I think that people have (in general) been sympathetic to how hard this is. However, whilst understandable, it doesn't make it less unfair or unreasonable.

All she is doing is postponing the inevitable and in doing so replacing a painful situation (handing over primary care giver role to DH) with an even more painful one (handing over to a nursery/childminder).

There must be a compromise here which will ease the transition for DW and still give DH some precious time with DC. The consequences of DW's plan will just build resentment and unhappiness, however heartbreaking it might seem in the short term to have to return to work.

Although it is a tough one to resolve to everyone's satisfaction, it's a dilemma born out of love, which is a good thing to remember.

Sorry SybilRamkin I missed your latest update. So she has no concern for how upset her husband would have been at leaving his child to return to work after the two inital paternity weeks leave. I presume that at 12 months when they are both working full time, then the DC will be with extended family/childminders/nursery. Surely it would ease her back into work gradually if she returned at 9 months knowing DC was in the safe care of her husband rather than returning back at 12 months and not only missing them but potentially worrying about how they are getting on in a new environment/with a new caregiver.