To think this is really unfair (maternity leave related)?

[Blyatiful]

DH has a colleague who is on parental leave for eight months. He and his wife had a baby via a surrogate outside of U.K. Because his wife doesn’t work (she is an “artist” and sells the odd painting) he is taking all of the parental leave on full pay. If his wife had given birth, he would have qualified for a few weeks paternity leave, but as they outsourced the birth, the employer is treating it as adoption leave, and as his wife doesn’t work, he is being treated as the main parent.

I want to think, good on him, but my horrible side is taking over and I think it’s quite unfair (and don’t get me started on the ethics of surrogacy, which may also be skewing my views).

@Blyatiful I think you’ve done a bit of backtracking there, no where did you say it wasn’t fair to other fathers. You said your horrible side was taking over and what you really meant was it’s unfair that they can both have all of this time off and be paid. After all the mother doesn’t work, she just sells the odd painting and now the father can have all of this paid paternity leave, and really why should he when the mother didn’t even give birth and the child is not adopted.

You’ve accepted YABU but you don’t know what they have been through as a couple to use surrogacy. I think the baby is fortunate to have both parents at this time.

Oh and my colleagues DH is an artist and sells the odd painting for a lot of money, way over what is needed to qualify for maternity pay / allowance / leave.

@DeusEx

Ah come on, *@CaptainOatFlosser* - that’s just designed to derail the thread onto surrogacy which OP said she didn’t want to happen...

@DeusEx urgh, no it really wasn’t , it was a genuine question.

@MimiDaisy11 apologies, I didn’t understand that this was a situation where money was being exchanged, in my head I was thinking of when a friend etc does it. I didn’t really take in the “outside of the U.K.” bit.

@DeusEx

Hurray for an AIBU reader accepting the consensus :) ;)

Please let’s now all avoid a pile on after the OP has done so...😬

Cue lots of people not reading the thread or the OP's posts...

Ok so fair enough it's correct as it is an adoption. So really there needs to be a change in the law to allow all fathers (or partners) to take the same time off following the birth of a child regardless of whether the mother works.
The current law is obviously sexist because if there is no woman giving birth involved, one partner can be not working and the other gets full maternity benefits even if they're a man.
If 2 gay men acquire a child (by adoption or surrogacy), neither of them will have given birth so they are able to choose who takes time off and one is entitled to the same as a mother who is actually also recovering from a birth. I.e. a full year off with 39 weeks with some pay, even if only one actually works.
Whereas for either a straight couple where the woman gives birth, or a lesbian couple where one gives birth, the one who gives birth must be working in order for the other parent to be entitled to any time off beyond the statutory 2 weeks "paternity" leave.
Can anyone explain how this can ever be fair. Basically if you give birth to your own child you are penalised compared to those who adopt (and adopters are going to include all same sex male couples).

I’m afraid you sound like your jealousy is clouding your judgement.

I had my first baby at the very very start of lockdown one.
My DH worked all through the pandemic, coming home and going straight up to the bathroom to “decontaminate” before actually being able to help.
My antenatal friends husbands were mostly furloughed on full pay at the same time.

I was very jealous but ultimately them getting less would never have meant I got more.
It’s life.
They have a baby and everyone has a slightly different leave set up when they have a new baby. Good for them for getting the most they can to be together.

I think there are two issues here, setting aside the surrogacy. There is what the UK employment law madates and then there is what a company will choose to put in its benefits package which cannot be less than the law but often, even today, is much more than the law mandates. Provided that all employees in the company are treated in the same way then i don't see what the fairness issue is?

My BIL is on 7 months leave (six months shared parental leave plus accrued holiday) and his wife doesn’t work. Full pay. Works for a big bank. I think it’s great. Although slightly wistful that my H didn’t have the opportunity to take a bit longer when our twins were born and he was back to work 4 weeks later… but such is progress and better for families and ultimately I hope women’s careers too

@SnackSizeRaisin

can you explain how are people who have birth children penalised compared to those who adopt?

I’m an adoptive parent. I had exactly the same adoption leave entitlement as maternity. No pregnant woman lost out on maternity leave because I had adoption leave.
So how are people who take maternity penalised?

[quote ExhaustedFlamingo]@AnyOldPrion - there are really strict criteria which has to be met for shared parental leave, including a minimum earnings threshold. To be eligible this man's wife must be doing more than selling the "odd" painting. The OP is being disingenuous about what the wife does. As I said above, it's just nasty.

With shared parental leave, you decide how you split it between you. If one person wants to take it all, they can. There's no abuse of the system going on here.[/quote]
Thank you for the explanation. Having strict criteria makes sense.

The other side to this equation is that a friend of mine had a baby and wasn’t working (hard for following wives to get jobs) and I was actually disappointed to find that her husband didn’t get his three months off. I think it would benefit fathers immensely to spend more time at home with their babies. I think additional paternity leave that is not dependent on whether the mother is working would be a positive thing, and potentially very useful if the mother has health problems after the birth.

That said, the system here, where fathers have to take the leave at a different time from the mothers has the added benefit that the fathers learn to parent their children unassisted, in a way that many British men manage to avoid.

I fail to see what the problem is or why this is unfair.

It’s all frigging unfair anyway, those of us who don’t want kids don’t have that option anyway.

I think you’re right actually OP. The unfairness here is that whilst adoption leave is often paid at enhanced levels to match maternity pay, shared parental leave is usually paid just at statutory levels.
So this means that a man who adopts a child can take the adoption leave and often have a decent package for the leave, whereas a man whose partner gives birth is less likely to have access to the same value of package.
This is a really big factor in why shared parental leave is not taken up much, because invariably it’s just paid at statutory levels.

8 months on full pay would be a very generous maternity package. Are you sure that's the case?

@Blyatiful

I think my feeling of unfairness is that if his non-working wife had had the baby, he wouldn’t have been given more than two weeks paternity leave.

How do you make that out? Maybe you should read up on shared parental leave...

@Blyatiful

I think my feeling of unfairness is that if his non-working wife had had the baby, he wouldn’t have been given more than two weeks paternity leave.

No but she could have had a year's maternity leave. Presumably that wouldn't have been with your employer, but an employer, somewhere, would have been paying for that leave.

I don't really understand what your issue with this is. If you have/adopt a baby, you get leave. In this case the man is getting it. That's actually a good thing, as it takes some of the pressure off those blimmin unreliable wimmin who keep having babies.

I think a lot of people are wrong about this.

A close friend was working in the Republic of Ireland while her husband worked in Northern Ireland. She'd worked for years in the UK, and they always planned to take shared parental leave. Her employer had crappy maternity provision, his had great: but they weren't legally allowed to take shared parental leave because she wasn't employed in the UK was basically 'wasn't employed' She looked into it A LOT, and so I feel pretty confident they were right that a man's shared parental leave is contingent on the wife's employment.

So I think the point is: he WOULDN'T be entitled to shared parental leave, its only the 'loophole' of it being an adoption despite it actually being a surrogacy. And there are good reasons IMO why 'traditional' adopters should get additional provision to jointly build a family unit which don't really apply here.

Tbh though, I mostly just think its crappy most men don't have more chance to take time off, and I do think its crappy that men can end up unable to use shared parental leave because their wives/partners work in a different jurisdiction, were made redundant at the wrong time, or chose to take some time out of the workplace. I don't think its about wishing this couple have less though, it should be about ensuring other engaged father's get more.

Another thing about SPL is if you’re both employed, you can take it at the same time – have six months off together, or alternate. But if you’re freelance, once you hand over your leave to your partner, you forfeit your right to go back to it, and you can’t take it at the same time either. Once I (freelance, sold the odd painting...) finished maternity and handed over to DP, that was me done. Nb. You can do SPL with one working partner and one not – the non-working or freelance partner gets SMA or SMP, the working one does SPL.

It’s all frigging unfair anyway, those of us who don’t want kids don’t have that option anyway.
You think it’s unfair that not wanting kids means you don’t get parental leave? OK...

@PotteringAlong

Also, being an artist and selling paintings means she does work. Granted she’s not spending 12 hours down the pit but it doesn’t mean it’s not a job.

This was my first thought!

@Sausageroll67

It’s all frigging unfair anyway, those of us who don’t want kids don’t have that option anyway.

I used to feel a bit like this, then I had a baby and realised it really wasn't a jolly holiday.

but my horrible side is taking over

Isn’t it just? The way you speak about this woman is deeply unpleasant.

He is entitled to adoption leave as, if a surrogate is birthing the baby, under U.K. law they'll need to formally adopt the baby for it to be theirs.

It's very difficult to draw a direct line of comparison between the entitlements of men who become fathers through birth and those who become fathers through adoption. In the former case the way the legislation is framed means men/female partners will (in terms of statutory leave/pay entitlements) always be classed as the secondary parent. In the case of the latter, fathers can be the primary or secondary parent, because single men and gay male couples can adopt.

Ultimately he's not taking anything he isn't entitled to in law. I get that it doesn't seem fair, but some of the comments on here talking about taking advantage of loopholes and 'but if she'd given birth ...' seem a bit tone deaf. I doubt they're in this position without some heartache and I'm sure it's not a deliberate strategy to lord it over birth parents.

If the mother worked and the father didn't, would she be considered to be 'taking advantage' if she took her full entitlement to adoption leave?

You are coming across as mean and jealous. It doesn’t even impact on you?! I don’t see what I’d wrong with what they’re doing? I’m assuming they did they used a surrogate because they have fertility issues and that’s far from a bundle of laughs.

Sorry I'm failing to understand this.
They had a baby via surrogacy and he is entitled to parental leave and it feels a bit 'off' ffs it is absolutely nothing to do with you.
The ethics of surrogacy- do you know their circumstances? Probably not. It's also unlikely to be a choice thing.
It is not cheap either.
And I'm prepared for the likes of Mumsnet to flame me for this but I'm just a little shocked by your attitude OP.
I have friends who cannot have kids (late twenties) due to negligence from the NHS and are going down the surrogate route. This is not out of choice.
If her partner has ONE perk from surrogacy/adoption then good for them. It doesn't affect your life in the slightest

I am wondering why it's any of your business? You don't work there, your husband does. You sound rather bitter and nasty about it, and it isn''t even any of your business.