AIBU to think that paternity leave policy is unfair…

[Wombat12]

I’m currently a full-time student and my DH works full-time. We’d like to start a family after I graduate. I’d have 2-3 months between the end of my course and the start of my job contract (guaranteed) so we’d aim to have the baby in that period/just before (as much as you can ever plan these things!) and our plan was then for me to start working full-time and my DH to take on the role of primary caregiver. So we looked into shared parental leave…

It seems that unless I am working for the required amount prior to my due date (26 weeks in the 66 weeks before earning at least £390 in total across 13 of those weeks) my DH won’t be entitled to any leave beyond the minimum 2 weeks. If I was working I could transfer my leave entitlement to DH. I might be being unreasonable but it seems unfair to me that my DH’s ability to take leave depends on my working status not on his own. If the situation was reversed my leave wouldn’t depend on his working status and I’d not be impressed if it did!

I appreciate this wouldn’t normally be a problem and I could just get a part-time job. However, unfortunately the course I’m studying doesn’t really allow any time for a job and it’s strongly recommended we don't have one, especially in our final year. Any suggestions of possible part-time jobs that would meet the minimum criteria and not be too time intensive really appreciated.

Sorry if I’ve explained this poorly!

Where i worked you had to have been there for two years before you were entitled to the full maternity leave and pay.

I see what you're saying but what about in the cases of those who have Dad staying at home? It's rare but it happens. Mum is still entitled to 9 months pay so essentially the state is paying for both parents to be at home. Surely there would be a way of doing it where the first x amount of weeks Mum has to take (if working obviously) but then the rest is only payable if both parents work?

If the dad is already a sahp, then he isnt in work. So exactly same as the mother mot being in work. So, yes if the mother returns to work early, mat pay stops. Because she is back at work. But they have the same income as before. There is no need for hom to have leave as he is already at home.

If they both work and he wants to be the sahp, then he gets the leave.

If she doesnt work, there is no leave to share.

It does make sense and is fair if you can realise that it's actually maternity leave that is shared. Maternity leave belongs to the woman. Which she only gets if she is in work. And can only share if the man is in work.

So it is fair. Both have to be in work.

OP if you follow marvels advice and dont actually do any work, its fraud and you would get MAT allowance. Not SMP.

So unless during this time you are going to sure you will be fit enough to work, assuming there no complications, or dont change your mind and dont feel you can leave the baby. You need savings to cover his wage as he will only get the mat allowance payment.

Shared leave is where both partners work, to encourage women back into work and lessen the career impact and encourage more men to share the burden.

It does make sense and is fair if you can realise that it's actually maternity leave that is shared. Maternity leave belongs to the woman

But that's exactly mine and others point. It shouldn't just be maternity leave and it shouldn't just be assumed Mum will be primary caregiver. I'm in a similar situation to OP. My decision to become a student again has effectively delayed us TTC for 3 years whereas if DP was the student it wouldn't be delaying us and it feels like a lot of pressure on me then.

Dear god. As an ‘oldie’ who got 3 months maternity leave (and full pay for just the first 2 weeks!) paternity leave was non existent (dads were usually back in work the day after baby’s birth) and we paid full childcare from 12 weeks to when the child started school (no subsidies) .... honestly, I despair!

Legislation has improved massively over recent years. Just because it doesn’t ‘fit’ your specific circumstances doesn’t make it unfair. You aren’t in work so why would you expect to get any of the terms and conditions that are dependent on working? And why on Earth you’re assuming you can neatly have a baby in a very specific window...

Despairing because things were bad before is a pretty selfish and horrible attitude to take. It's a "I had a it bad so why should you have it so much better" kind of attitude and I despair

OP, no. I’m a mature student at University with 3DC. STEM subject. There is absolutely no fricking way I could handle any part of my degree whilst pregnant. And I have straight forward pregnancies.

Qualify, get your job and THEN start thinking about having children.

Do you really want to be pregnant in your final year?! Really?!

And 3 months off for having a baby is naff all. I took six months off with both of mine which was bugger all time and not long enough.

Everyone else is saying the same thing, adjust your expectations.

Smp is an in work benefit so you have to earn money to build an entitlement . Maternity leave, clue is in the name - you need to be working to be able to take leave from it. If you are not working there's maternity allowance but I'm not sure on eligibility for that either.

But that's exactly mine and others point. It shouldn't just be maternity leave and it shouldn't just be assumed Mum will be primary caregiver. I'm in a similar situation to OP. My decision to become a student again has effectively delayed us TTC for 3 years whereas if DP was the student it wouldn't be delaying us and it feels like a lot of pressure on me then.

You are missing the point. It's for people who are both working. If you went back to work and left dp at home and he wasnt already in a job, he would get to share your mat leave.

Both need to be working. Of course it should be maternity leave. Are you saying you want to take away one of one benefits women get? The woman Carrie's the baby and needs to recover which can take weeks, months or more.

What you want is a one income household to bring in one wage plus smp.

The purpose of smp isnt to increase a households income. It's to make it easier when one person is off.

If your dh was a student and not working you would not have his income before hand. So if you go back to work and leave the baby with him, you would still have your wage coming in. The same as before.

Your decision to become a student was exactly that. Your decision. You could have waited and ttc first. But you chose not to. Smp and Mat leave is available to those who fit a criteria. Both working.

You chose to do something that means you no longer fit, that criteria.

If you're not actually a healthcare student-ignore this and good luck with whatever you decide.

If you are, particularly if you're a medical student, please don't plan to have a tiny baby and go through F1/F2. What you're legally entitled to or not entitled to is irrelevant when the reality of working in the NHS is that your employment rights don't tend to be respected, you do get treated like shit and you will be expected to work unpaid for a few extra hours each day.

Things do get better after the first couple of years, so see what it's like first. Even if DP does the paternity leave, it's still a wonderful time getting to know your baby and it would be such a shame to miss out on weeks at a time. Best of luck!

If your dh was a student and not working you would not have his income before hand.

No you wouldn't but you'd have your SMP whilst you were off. Whereas with the Mum being a student, if dad takes time off you get nothing. So no it's the same situation and completely unfair.

@Edbear42 would you give the same advice to someone who is a healthcare student but not medical iyswim?

Oops I meant no it's not the same situation

I don't think asking people to check their privilege is either selfish or horrible.

Maternity rights are considerably more generous now than they were as recently as the 1990s.

If you want further change - what is the change that you actually want?

As things stand, and not considering adoption leave (which is similar and what same-sex couples would use if neither of them actually gave birth) is that the person who did give birth gets guaranteed paid leave. They have to take a minimum of 2 weeks (4 in certain industries) there are then further paid and unpaid weeks, up to a year, which the person who gave birth can relinquish (in their entirety, or by sharing with a partner)

Paternity leave is 2 weeks, r gardless of arrangements for maternity leave.

What would a new system, where maternity leave is not linked to giving birth, actually look like? Would it be 2 weeks off (4 in some sectors) paid on sick leave terms to the person who gave birth, then a 'new child allowance' (covering both adoption and birth DC) which can be taken by either parent?

Sorry PoesyCherish don't know how to tag you!

I think it's probably the case for all healthcare as let's face it we're all in the shit together, but I think it'd better for the OP to get the opinion of colleagues on placement in case I'm wrong.

No you wouldn't but you'd have your SMP whilst you were off. Whereas with the Mum being a student, if dad takes time off you get nothing. So no it's the same situation and completely unfair.

But the mother needs to be at home in part for recovery. It's never going to be equal. Because men dont give birth. That doesnt mean it's not fair.

If the mum works and dad doesnt. There will only be smp while the mum is off work. Inve she is back at work, theres no more smp.

If the dad works and the mum doesnt, theres no leave to share. Because its maternity leave. Because the mother physically gives birth.

It's for people who both work. If you dint both work, it's not applicable. So it is fair. If either are not working, it's not applicable.

As the mother has to have time off, it's her that qualifies for mat leave.

Would you prefer it if they stopped 52 weeks of Mat leave. Reduced it to 26 weeks but made it applicable to both men and women on the same terms?

So both parents have to return when the baby is around 5-6 months old?

Equal and fair are not the same thing.

No problem @Edbear42 Thanks! How do you even bring that up without sounding a bit weird though? Anyone who brought up ttc on my first degree was looked at like they were totally mad, mind you that was by other students (so mostly 18-21 year olds) rather than colleagues as we weren't on placement, same situation when I did my postgrad. Sorry OP, I know this isn't what you asked about.

Haha no worries PoesyCherish! I'd say its a good topic of conversation for one of those night shifts where you can sit down for a cup of tea at 3am. At that point all conversation is normal!

Actually any opportunity where you have a chance for a sit down and cup of tea to be honest...

Just have a baby after working for a year. It's ridiculous to plan pregnancy for your final few months of uni and then start your new job with a newborn. Just wait until you've been working a year or so. Not at all unfair that you can't just have the exact perfect situation that you want. Most people can't, just how the world works.

What would a new system, where maternity leave is not linked to giving birth, actually look like? Would it be 2 weeks off (4 in some sectors) paid on sick leave terms to the person who gave birth, then a 'new child allowance' (covering both adoption and birth DC) which can be taken by either parent?

That's how it works in some other countries. Initial leave for mother to recover, but most of the leave is for baby care which can be done by either parent.

Which countries?

I would like to see how that works. Because I can imagine that causes all sorts of problems.

And I imagine changing fro the current system to on where mothers effectively lose 26 weeks of mat leave to give to men wont go down well with anyone.

And I wonder how many women need more than 'the initial' recovery period off and how that impacts them.

Sorry, but you don't accrue full labour rights without working. That's how the world works. Also, good luck with planning your baby to the nearest month. You do realise it can take years, right?

There seems to be a misconception on this thread that you can do shared parental leave if a father was previously unemployed or a student - you can't, the conditions are:

*You and your partner must:

have been employed continuously by the same employer for at least 26 weeks by the end of the 15th week before the due date
stay with the same employer while you take SPL
be ‘employees’ (not ‘workers’)
each earn on average at least £116 a week

So there's no situation where a previously unemployed person can claim the SMP. It is true that if a woman previously worked and her husband didn't she can still claim her own SMP - given that then the whole family would be living off SMP and nothing else I suspect the number of people doing this is very small.

I still don't see how it could be possibly be resolved if both parents wanted to take the leave if there wasn't the 'default parent'? At the moment the mother gets final say - I can see why people don't like that, but I don't see an alternative, really. Of course most couples can sort it out amongst themselves but you have to legislate for the extremes - completely uninvolved fathers who decide they want to take SPL, forcing their ex back to work, for instance - and I think the current situation is a practical solution to that.

I suppose the real alternative is to cut maternity leave to 26 weeks then add on the extra leave solely for the other partner on a 'use it or lose it' basis. I'm not opposed to that (but then I wouldn't be, it's exactly how we split the leave anyway), but it's wildly unpopular on MN whenever anyone suggests it, and I suspect - given that around 3% of couples used SPL anyway - that would be the general reaction from the electorate to such a proposed plan.

Today 07:06 PoesyCherish

Despairing because things were bad before is a pretty selfish and horrible attitude to take. It's a "I had a it bad so why should you have it so much better" kind of attitude

Except I’m not taking that attitude. I think it’s great that legislation has come so far. I’m glad my dd will benefit from a year long ML should she want it, and that she’ll get the benefit of free nursery hours for her kids.

I’m just astonished that despite the generous leave available now, the OP is complaining that she can’t benefit from things that you need to be in work to qualify for. If you’re not working, you don’t qualify for ML - simple. Her dh if he’s working will qualify for paternity leave. She’s not being discriminated against. Nothing is unfair. Other women who decide to have a baby while not in employment wouldn’t be any better off than her.