to think there is a massive disconnect between being a parent and working and this needs to be taught emphatically at school

[theremustbeanotherway]

So that my people like me, as so many of you are, don't spend decades getting those top GCSEs, A-levels, the Oxbridge degree, the high-flying legal career, only to feel like I need to massively downgrade/quit work in order to have anything approaching a balanced life with my growing family? Tis truly miserable. I know part-time is a possibility but certainly not at my firm and they are like gold dust elsewhere. DH very supportive and does more than his fair share but it's not working at present and I can only see it getting worse in future.

Are there parts of the world where society is set-up so as to allow both parents to work without the family suffering? Is it because our society lacks the support of a strong extended family and community network or because our jobs are more demanding and don't acknowledge the competing demands of a young family?

I don't understand what it is op actually wants or expects?

I can't see any getting away from working fewer hours if you want to spend more time doing other things or being with other people (be they family, friends, your own partner or indeed your own children).

It's going to be a very short lesson in the curriculum, that one!

Well another way for you op would be to have married a different sort of man.

Presumably you have plenty of money to throw at the childcare issue and can afford a top of the range Nanny.

How lucky you are!

The thing that frustrates me most at the moment is the frequent assumption by people, at work or privately, that I won't want to go back to work full-time (currently on mat leave with 2nd dc). No-one would ever dare ask a man that!

We got tricked into thinking we could "have it all" and NOBODY can "have it all", it's impossible.

The 4 years I did my degree when my DCs were aged 4 and 8 were the most difficult I've ever experienced, and then at the end of it I couldn't get a decent job in the field (social work) which didn't involve me doing horrible on-call shifts at weekends and now have ended up working school hours as a play therapist (pay is rubbish) but I am SO much happier.

Not really gcseoptions. I can afford a nanny but would pretty much kiss goodbye to most of my salary in the process. I'm not working all hours of the day and night for that! I'm definitely going elsewhere, I'm just disappointed that even in the realm of 'normal jobs', it's still extremely tough to manage a family and career. Even at small firms it seems the norm is to stay at work till 6.30-7. In those circs I will be depending on my employer to allow me to leave earlier and catch up at home when I need to do nursery pick ups and/or try to see my child before bed. I don't dare to delve too much into such discussions prior to getting a job offer for fear of losing out on a job altogether because my situation is more complicated than the other responsibility-free candidates.

That's confusing. How can your high flying legal career only bring in a little more than a nanny's salary?

And surely most working couples look at childcare costs as joint costs?

Perhaps high flying legal careers involve fairly low pay before you hit the heights as it were. My second up from entry level NHS job covered the cost for our nanny, and yes I totally agree childcare should be a household cost.

I do feel sympathetic toward the OP as she is clearly caught in a position she didn't anticipate and can't find a good solution. I just don't really understand why she didn't see it coming, it's not a recent issue, some careers are very very full on, and because they are highly competitive the incentive on employers to change their ways is limited.

"I just don't really understand why she didn't see it coming, it's not a recent issue, some careers are very very full on,"

yes, that's my point too. It's not a lesson that needs to be taught in school?

Employers need to change, but some professions never will. There are people out there willing to do the 12-15 hours days, and there always will be.

I work with a local charity that works with children (especially girls) from deprived backgrounds to broaden their horizons, think about ways of getting to University and having a career they love (not necessarily high flying, just something they want to do).

It important to these children that they see that work is a way out, to gain independence and not rely on benefits (like so many members of their families).

That is what children should be concentrating on at school, not trying to make decisions about a lifestyle that they may never have - they may not find a partner, they may not have children, they may get married but end up divorced or widowed, they may experience illness.....

I remember when I was 16/17 I was busy making plans to go to Oxford with my then boyfriend, marry, travel the world, have children and then be a politician. At 19 he killed himself. I did go to Oxford, but did a different degree and ended up in health services research - specialising in mental health. At 21 I was diagnosed with cancer and told I would never have children. I did marry and eventually, many years later, had children - but my life is very different to what I thought it was going to be. So you see, you can't make plans about the rest of your life at such a young age.

All we can do is to educate our children to make the best decisions for their own lives and give them the skills needed to adapt to changing situations.

For many children, the rot that Kirstie Allsop and others like her spouts only means that young women are being put in potentially vulnerable positions when the relationships that they have when they are young end and they have no means to support themselves and their children.

Sorry for the essay.

That was really interesting zee. What are you meaning by Kirsty Allsop? I cannot stand that woman but don't know the particular thing you're talking about. Thanks.

OP how can your salary get eaten up?

Trainee solicitors in the city get 40k, NQs a good whack more. How many years PQE are you?

My understanding is London nannies who are willing to be flexible/do the odd late night are pretty expensive, especially given the cost iscoming out of your post-tax salary. I never looked into this option properly because I never intended to be in my current position long-term. What I didn't see coming is, on looking for a new job, things aren't much better elsewhere. Here may be fewer hours but id you can't get home between 7-8 it doesn't necessarily make things much easier in terms of picking up a child from nursery or putting him/her to bed. Of course general quality of life is improved with the reduction of hours but not the spending-time-with-children aspect of it.

So my current view is that it's not so much that Some careers are very full on, but that a Lot of careers are very difficult to manage with young children, if you also want to see your child on a daily basis (not unreasonable I would argue!).

I know quite a few families in London with a live in nanny. They pay around £475 per week gross.

Au pairs are much less obviously.

You have X amount of hours in a day. You can allocate those hours to spending time with your children or working in your office. But you can't change what X is, only how you use it.

So if you want the high paying career, you take the high paying hours. If you want to be with your children, you take part time hours. Neither option is right or wrong, but you can't be two places at once.

Who makes more money, you or DH? Who is the highest earner should be working full time to provide money for the family, and the lower earner should be working part time (or staying at home) to provide support for the family. Or, if that doesn't sound appealing, you sound like you make enough to hire a childminder to watch your kids or send them to nursery. You have plenty of available options, it's up to you what you pick.

Zeezeek you make some very valid points. My comment about education was a throwaway comment, not a serious proposal on education policy. However other posters have made valid points about broadening the discussion on careers at school and university to also discuss the lifestyle aspects of certain jobs. Children beginning vocational degrees make some pretty long-term choices at a very young age, no harm in delvong into what those choices may mean in a more rounded manner.

A colleague of DH went to work for a magic circle law firm and was on 45K as a trainee and a starting salary of 60K once qualified. My DH is a lawyer although not corporate but his firm is flexible enough so that he goes in later around 10am because he does the school run and often works from home to cover school plays, assemblies, parent's evening etc which is more difficult for me as I have to request annual leave.

He's usually back home around 7.30pm to do the bed-time routine and clean up after dinner. It's just a question of picking which area of law to practice in. Some are more compatible with the work/life balance than others and I don't think you should say all law is off limits if you want a family just perhaps give consideration to how you are going manage a family if corporate law is the route you take. I find it naive that the OP has never considered this before embarking on her chosen career

Law can be tough but it does usually cover a nanny.

In other sectors the drop out rare is so high as the hours are still quite long with not as much financial reward. Post dc women drop out completely.

£475 per week for a live in nanny is a lot less than I thought actually. Even my part time salary would more than cover that, though we'd consider all child care costs as joint. I'm looking to go back full time soon, after a few years part time to pursue other interests.

Thanks word factory, I feel quite heartened now

As a family, it makes sense to have the higher earner working full time, if a choice needs to be made. Right now, that's the husband. But I hope that won't be case forever.

Well, yes, it seems reasonable that nanny who is willing to work unexpected late nights would be fairly expensive.

Op, your problem is that your dh isn't interested in doing any childcare, really, isn't it?

Actually, I should bow out as your op is annoying me!

You both have good salaries and you're moaning about paying for looking after your child or children.

Again, I don't really get your point.

I'm a solicitor for a legal500 firm, although I specialise in legal aid work.

I have DS aged 2 and am on mat leave with DD who is 4 months.

After DS was born I applied for flexible working 4 days, with 8 of those hours worked flexibly in the evening or weekend. No-one had ever been this brazen before but I made a strong argument and they agreed to trial it, that arrangement has been in place ever since.

I have found it has been a really positive arrangement as far as work life balance goes.

But I cannot deny that my pay and progression have suffered. I'm 5 years PQE and still on my NQ salary, despite several professional qualifications since. Friends of mine who haven't had kids are on almost double my salary by changing firms and moving up the ladder. I feel so grateful for my arrangement that I don't want to rock the boat. I have asked for a payrise but it was declined.

Err no gcseoptions, I've already said my DH does his fair share and more when I'm busy. If you read my posts you'd see that I am not looking to keep the current job with its long hours and high pay therefore I'm not interested in how much nannies cost. My concern is that looking around I see that a lot of mainstream jobs with much lower rates of pay are still quite hard to manage with children, if you want to be part of their daily life. I also read a lot about children needing or wanting you more as they get older and go to school. That worries me. I'm sorry my personal worries are annoying you but I think they are valid, both for myself and others.

On reflection I don't think I complained anywhere here about childcare costs! They're not what I'm worried about.

I think it is naive to think that you should be allowed to take a 5 year career break, then go back into your role and be promoted and have the same opportunities as people who had been breaking themselves in their professional roles during the same period.

We all need to take more responsibility for our actions and not expect society to pick up the pieces. I am an ex lawyer (having given it up to have 3 children in 6 years) but most people I know now are ordinary working people where both partners work in roles which involve shifts or self employment which brings some flexibility. They share childcare responsibilities but they also don't have access to the huge incomes or potential incomes that law and other professions bring.

The financial rewards of a legal career certainly comes at a huge price and the culture where I worked was certainly not child or family friendly despite the guff in the recruitment brochures. The demands of a client paying for advice at ££££ an hour had to be paramount.

In the ordinary world outside magic circle firms both partners work because they have to and I have upmost respect for them and the lengths they go to to make their family lives succeed without expensive nannies etc. I feel very privileged that my husband who is also a lawyer (non MC and regions) is able to support me in a economically modest but emotionally rich and unstressed family life.

I do think that you can't have it all, that young children need love and care and time of a parent for most of their waking hours. One parent needs to step down or both need to work it out and share between themselves. Society is definitely not responsible. The family that bear the children is responsible for finding the solution that works for them as are millions of families around the world.

I am prepared to be flamed but I am happy to put my own career on hold and sacrifice luxuries for the sake of being a relaxed parent who is around. I do know this is a huge privilege that many of the parents at my child's school simply couldn't afford. And I am fully intending to return to work when all my children are all at school but only to a role (non legal) which allows me to be around for most of their waking hours (the problem maybe that such a job doesn't exist...).

Life is series of phases and as our generation will be working into their seventies, I have decades ahead of me to forge a career.