Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

DP wants to shift goalposts on childcare and put 6wk old into ft nursery

251 replies

Jackieharris · 06/03/2015 14:34

I'm pregnant. Planned 3rd DC. I earn more than DP and hated mat leave last time so we agreed before pregnancy he'd be the sahp and I'd go back to work early with this one.

I'm in the process of changing jobs so won't get smp so have to go back after 6 weeks, no option. If DP hadn't been willing to be sahp I would have waited to ttc until I'd bulit up maternity entitlements again and taken maybe 3-6 months off instead.

Atm DP earns £200pwk (self employed). But he has now heard about an opportunity to earn £400pwk and is applying for it. (Didn't consult me first)

Now if this had been before the pregnancy I'd be so happy for him. But I feel like he has totally moved the goalposts for me. He seems to think instead of him being a sahp we can just put newborn into ft nursery at 6 weeks.

I'm not against nursery. Other DCs went, but not until 11 months old.

I've looked up the cost of the local one (he didn't bother to do this) and it costs £200 pwk. So he'll be bringing home exactly the same as now! (Prob more work/more hours/more responsibility too)

He's planning on doing this without actually asking my opinion or doing any research on how it will work out re: tax credits, logistics of nursery runs (he doesn't drive, I do), who will be off when baby is sick etc.

I felt able to go back to work so quickly because I was relying on having a sahp and the convenience that brings in terms of sick days, no having to get a newborn up and out early etc.

I'm really annoyed. 1) that he didn't discuss this with me 2) it isn't what I agreed to when we ttc

He doesn't seem to see a problem and I feel like a bitch for not being 100% happy that he's had this opportunity.

AIBU?

OP posts:
CheerfulYank · 07/03/2015 06:21

I don't know why people always trot out the whole "they do it in the US" thing on here. Maybe in some parts, but it has never been the norm as far as I know, and I have lived in the US my entire life.

I worked at a nursery for years and recall one 6 week old. There might have been others, but I only remember him.

12 weeks maternity leave (usually including some unpaid) is "the norm" with every one I've ever known except for one person who works for her father. He thought she'd "take a long weekend". Hmm He's a dick.

Rafterplease · 07/03/2015 06:30

Re: 'why have children if you don't want to be with them 24/7'

Do you apply this to every other choice in your life?

'Why get married if you're not going to be with your husband 24/7?'

'Why get a university education if you are not going to use your degree always and ever?'

Fauxlivia · 07/03/2015 06:31

Coumarin the childs dad, you know, the other parent agreed to do childcare. He's the one who reneged on the agreement, so I hope your comment is aimed at him. The OP is not unwilling to look after her child - she is doing what millions of fathers do every day without criticism, which is go to work and financially support her family while leaving the care of her children to their other parent!

diddl · 07/03/2015 06:46

Hope you get sorted out somehow OP.

I'd be furious with him for changing his mind.

Iggly · 07/03/2015 06:54

Rafter you make no sense. You don't get married to be with your husband 24/7

But when you have children you should be giving them the best care possible.

Which the dh in the op just isn't thinking about.

Rafterplease · 07/03/2015 07:04

That's my point ... You don't get married to be with your husband 24/7 so why do some people on this thread assume that you have babies to be with them 24/7? ('Why bother having kids if you are going to use childcare' comments above, several of them).

Booboostoo · 07/03/2015 07:11

Some of the responses are really surprisingly sexist! The OP had made arrangements for the care of her DC - their father! He should be good enough even for those worrying about early brain development and what have you. It is the DH's fault that he appears flaky, disorganised and a poor communicator.

I hope you get your DH to see the light and confirm the original SAHP agreement OP.

dangerrabbit · 07/03/2015 07:38

YANBU

Your DH is displaying appalling communication skills here and appears very selfish and unthinking about his family. Hope you manage to come to a joint decision that suits you.

And am a bit ??? At all the posters who seem to be blaming you and using this as an opportunity to have a bunfight about length of mat leave when it was your DH who reneged on the agreement not you, and you had (you thought) made adequate provisions for your leave.

Thesuperswimmingdolphin · 07/03/2015 07:58

In fairness to nurseries too I feel I should take issue with this point about 'good' care. We all know babies benefit from forming bonds with caregivers and that consistency is important. Guess what - nursery staff know that too!
Obviously quality varies but a good nursery will have a small 'baby' room which is consistently staffed by the same people. The nursery I used ran along exactly those lines with the baby room away from the younger children and with staffing which never varied in the 4 years I used it. Always the same woman in her 50s in charge.

I see another poster has trotted out the 'why have kids' line. Hmm
Remember oh judgemental fool that parenting is LIFELONG. It's not a competition to see who can sacrifice the most and it's not about time served. Caring for your child 24/7 for the first 5 years does not make you a better parent and if you think it does and you use that to deliberately make other parents feel shit then actually that indicates some areas where you are significantly lacking. Like imagination, compassion, empathy - all useful stuff for raising children, guiding teens and supporting adults. So that's ironic.

Original poster
Jackieharris · 07/03/2015 08:03

ava we have big age gaps, DC1 would be horrified at the though of needing a nanny, he is almost old enough to be a babysitter/au pair himself!

I'm ignoring the ridiculous posts bashing all wohms. No one criticises men for going back to work ridiculously soon after they have DCs.

In the long run I would prefer it if we were both working ft in well paying jobs. But I just don't see the point until DP earns enough to pay for childcare plus probably some extra domestic help as quite frankly I don't have the energy to do an intense job then come home to the 'double shift' of washing/cooking/cleaning.

We share all our money so it's not like he needs his job to have his own income (unlike several mums I know).

The plan for him to be the sahp is a bit of an experiment. It might not work. Just because he's good with the DCs on his days off/holidays doesn't mean he'd cope with the monotony & isolation of the day in day out drudgery of daily childcare where you have nothing to show for all your work at the end of the day. He's already said he won't go to toddler groups which I'd rather he did so dc3 can have some social interaction. We'll see how it works out.

OP posts:
AskBasil · 07/03/2015 08:08

Well it does sound like he has tht nice male entitement of not really needing to bother himself about the nuts and bolts of family life. He can just move the goalposts at any time and you have to pick up the pieces.

If that means your baby not having the childcare you feel happy with, so be it. Not his problem. Your's.

Sad
Lagoonablue · 07/03/2015 08:21

I don't think anyone is suggesting that mothers need to be with their children 24/7. What some are saying is that the first few months are crucial to brain development and a small baby needs to have consistent care with it's main care giver, usually the mother for the first few weeks. Strong attachments are critical to this process. Yes women have always worked. However the idea of working outside of the home away from your baby is only really something that developed from the Industrial Revolution onwards. Look around the world, women often accompany their babies to work in the fields etc. just because in developed countries small babies are separated from their mothers doesn't make it a good thing.

The reason maternity leave developed was due to a growing recognition that attachments are critical.

At 6 months babies can begin to understand that someone can go but can come back. Tiny babies don't. No matter how good the nursery is they can never provide that consistent care a baby would get at home with a parent.

I don't think this is judgemental.

Needalifecoach · 07/03/2015 08:45

Oh I had one that refused to do the toddler groups as well. And swimming lessons and even the park.

I went back to work reluctantly and he only stayed at home to avoid working himself. Be very careful if it's only on his terms.

charlestonchaplin · 07/03/2015 08:53

Susiesue61
When mine were babies, I actually didn't want a childminder or nanny, because I didn't want someone else to have that relationship with my baby

This is really sad, but probably more common than people will admit to.

Nolim · 07/03/2015 08:53

Sorry if i am being nosy but why is he refusing to go to playgroups? They were among my favorite activities during maternity leave. Does he think he will stand up as the only sahd? (so what?) or just doesnt want to the trouble of getting the baby ready?

Purplepoodle · 07/03/2015 09:05

Hi

I dragged my dh who was a sahd around several toddler groups whilst on maternity leave so we found one with a few men - he made some friends and worked out well as he wasn't up for toddler groups either

Treaclepot · 07/03/2015 09:05

Mine went to both CMs and nursery but there is no way on gods earth they would go at 6 weeks old so I imagine you feel the same. You husband is bang out of order.

I personally would be really skint for a few months and not work. Go to a repayment mortage, don't use petrol/sell the car, eat really cheaply, stop all extras, , don't buy clothes and get secondhand everything or whatever it takes for a few months more. We did this for a few years and it was really tough but worth it.

Treaclepot · 07/03/2015 09:07

But having thought about it, that wouldn't solve your dilemma so your husband is still bang out of order.

Susiesue61 · 07/03/2015 09:09

But things may be different from when I had Ds1 now. I was given 8 weeks full pay and I needed to pay the bills. He was 10 days late!! So that ate into my leave. I can honestly say that I have had no problem bonding with him or my other two. Studies can be found that prove everything!

NickyEds · 07/03/2015 09:09

He hadn't seemed to have thought of any of this.

Unbelieveable! Is he aware of his children at all???? You know, their needing to go to school, eat...stuff like that?? Sounds like a bit of a child.

by the time dc3 is born he shouldn't have to be 'on site' apart from the occasional meeting.

I've yet to find a job where you are paid £400 a week for doing nothing so it sounds to me like he's actually planning to work from home for 6 months?? So where the unpaid leave? Surely he's either taking this contract, in which case surely he'll have to work for it or he's having six months off unpaid then going back to his old job?? Neither of which are what you agreed when you ttc.

You're doing nothing wrong by the way. Some very sexist views being expressed on here. My DP went back to work when ds was 3 weeks old- no one every suggested he shouldn't have had kids.

Needalifecoach · 07/03/2015 09:12

I would not compromise too much on what you feel at heart is best for you and your family. I always regretted going back to work and it was not best for my child. I also had a lot of resentment towards ex because he did it for the wrong reasons

Gileswithachainsaw · 07/03/2015 09:23

No one's said she shouldn't have had kids be case she Didn't want to stay home.

We said that clearly he Didn't want to be at home either given he's trying to "check out" of parenting at the first available opportunity and maybe if he'd been honest from the start maybe number three would have been a decision made differently or at a different time since neither of them actually want to be a parent at home for any length of time.

I'd expect a grown man to be able to suck it up for longer than 6 weeks of that's what's best for the baby.

BeyondRepair · 07/03/2015 11:09

Re: 'why have children if you don't want to be with them 24/7'

A baby needs its mother, its her voice and her smell the baby has grown to know for its life in the womb. Amazing one has to spell these things out?

A baby is, vulnerable, tiny and helpless. In early years it needs Mum or Dad or close family member for as long as possible.

I am aghast at the glib comments about choosing to have a baby then happily shoving it in a nursery at weeks old. I find that a staggeringly selfish attitude and cannot believe you would choose to have a baby in those circumstances.

Its selfish because your not thinking about the needs of the baby but your own needs and how to bend the baby into that picture.

You dont have to want to be with your child 24/7 and as soon as they start school you wont be with them 24/7.

However you should as a parent choosing to have a baby want to at least give them the best care they deserve as a tiny creature who has not been asked to be born.

BeyondRepair · 07/03/2015 11:11

I would be deeply hurt on a number of levels if I op, renegading on agreement, for no great reason, lack of care for the un born child, and lack of thought and care all round.

Nolim · 07/03/2015 11:12

"You dont have to want to be with your child 24/7 and as soon as they start school you wont be with them 24/7. "

And before school you do have to be with them 24/7?

Swipe left for the next trending thread