i asked my friend Chat GTP on the last day of my £200 per month super subscription !!
it says…. She should stop trying to produce a “perfect” solution on her own and go into that meeting with a clear, evidence-based proposal.
From what you’ve set out, this is not a case of her being disorganised or unwilling to work. It is a genuine childcare gap with very limited local provision, two children with additional needs, two separate settings, and a husband whose current job pattern does not cover all pickups. She has already explored the obvious options. The employer may still say they need full office cover, but they should at least engage properly with a workable proposal rather than just pushing her to “find something”. Under the current flexible working framework, employees can make a statutory request from day one, employers must consult before rejecting, and any refusal has to be for one of the recognised business reasons. Those reasons include impact on performance, quality, customer demand, or inability to reorganise work.
What she should do next is this.
First, she should go into the meeting with a written proposal, not just the problem. The strongest version is probably something like: on the 1 to 2 days when her husband is in the office, she leaves at 2:40, collects the children, and then resumes work from home until 5:00 or later if needed; she remains contactable by phone and Teams; she keeps core supervisory tasks, escalations, approvals and check-ins scheduled around that pattern; and they review it after 8 to 12 weeks. That is much stronger than saying “I need flexibility”. It says: here is how the business still gets the hours and the coverage.
Second, she should frame it as a trial with measurable safeguards. For example: set times for supervision catch-ups, a handover process for the late afternoon, clear escalation routes, and agreed productivity measures. If the employer’s concern is “you cannot supervise effectively if you are not physically in the office,” the answer is not to argue in general terms. The answer is to ask: what specifically is not being covered, and how can we test a structure that covers it? Acas expects consultation before refusal, which means discussing alternatives, not simply saying no.
Third, she should put in a formal flexible working request anyway, even if she thinks it may be refused. I would not treat that as pointless. A formal request creates a proper process and requires the employer to deal with the actual proposal. It is often better to have a concrete written request on record than a string of informal conversations. The employer can refuse for legitimate business reasons, yes, but they should still consult and explain the reason.
Fourth, she should not threaten to leave as a tactic unless she truly means it. That can backfire badly. A better line is: “I want to stay here. I enjoy the role. I am trying to find a sustainable arrangement that works for both the business and my family.” That is calm, credible and harder to dismiss.
Fifth, she should ask HR to be involved if they are not already. This has moved beyond an informal manager chat. HR should review whether a temporary hybrid pattern, adjusted start/finish time, compressed hours, use of annual leave in part-days, or a temporary change to duties is possible. If the employer has already said “no” to leave or unpaid time, she should ask them to explain why those options are ruled out if the alternative is losing a key supervisor.
There are also a few legal points worth knowing. Time off for dependants is for unexpected emergencies, such as a sudden childcare breakdown or school closure, and is not designed to cover an ongoing long-term arrangement. Carer’s leave exists, but it is only up to one week in a 12-month period, unpaid, so it is not a long-term answer either. Parental leave can sometimes help as a short-term buffer, but in general it is unpaid and usually taken in week-long blocks, so again it is not a real structural fix for 1 to 2 afternoons every week.
There is one more point she should keep in mind. Where a workplace rule disadvantages women because women are more likely to have childcare responsibilities, that can raise indirect sex discrimination issues unless the employer can justify the rule. Acas gives childcare-related examples of this. Also, discrimination by association can apply in some circumstances because of a connection with a disabled person. That does not mean she should go into the meeting threatening discrimination claims, but it does mean she should be careful, keep notes, and not accept dismissive treatment.
So, in practical terms, what should she do?
She should go in and say, in effect:
“I’ve looked at all realistic childcare options. There is no after-school provision at either school, no suitable childminder, no family support available more than one day at most, and because of my children’s needs some of the obvious options are not safe. I want to remain in this role and continue doing it well. My proposed solution is that on the 1 to 2 days where pickup cannot be covered, I leave at 2:40, collect the children, and complete the remainder of my hours from home. I’m proposing this as a trial arrangement with clear review points and agreed cover/escalation processes. If there are concerns, I’d like to discuss exactly what they are and what alternatives the business would consider.”
That is probably her best position.
She should not go in apologising. She should not go in angry. She should not go in pretending there is a magical childcare solution she has missed. She should go in as a good employee presenting the most viable arrangement available.
If the employer rejects it, then the next step is to ask for the decision and reasons in writing, consider an appeal or revised request, and speak to Acas for tailored advice before deciding whether to stay or move on.