If society is willing to fund childcare for working parents - should parents of disabled children be equally entitled to this?

[MamaLlama123]

As a society we spend millions on funding childcare for working parents - policy is framed as this “free childcare for working parents”. One of the main arguments for access to this free childcare is because women shouldn’t have to give up careers/ pensions/ financial independence when they become mothers

However families of disabled/ send children often find that these hours are unusable in practice because settings can’t meet needs/ reduced timetables or simply will not offer places. Is seems unfair that mothers are expected to step down from work/ reduce hours/ absorb all caring responsibility. nurseries/ schools will often say that the requires requires a 1:1 to access the setting which no one seems prepared to fund

The parents with the highest caring responsibilities often greater financial pressure have least access to childcare and the workforce. Any if lack of childcare pushes these women/ families out of the workforce - then shouldn’t the benefits system compensate for this, for the earning and pension losses that result. An example of this that the money spent on 30hrs free childcare place to be directly given the the family

Or should these mothers/ families just accept that they should be at home? If a mother of a disabled does wish to maintain her career/ work - is this a legitimate goal that society should support or is that selfish because her child’s needs are greater.

I would be interested to hear thoughts as well as hear from families in a similar position

I have a disabled child. I could have respite care, which parents of children without disability don't get. I don't expect to have anything funded over and above normal childcare. With additional needs, I expect my DH to support my career and take his share of absorbing the extra demands to enable us both to work. It hasn't actually worked out that way in reality though. Supports are funded for disabled children, so that can be used for extra help and care if needed.

I think they should massively increase carers allowance and change it to a non taxable benefit instead then parents receiving it could use it to fund whatever they need eg childcare/respite/other help

From a fairness perspective, of course they should be supported. From a reality perspective, it’s unlikely. There’s not even enough childcare for children that easily fit into the system and there’s never been enough support for disabled children.

I suspect the government would say that DLA is provided directly to the families? But I’m also not sure the 30 hours free being paid to them really helps. It’d be worth just over £80 a week where I am. I don’t think that would really buy any help for the families or parents of disabled children at all.

In theory social services can help with respite, but again, in reality it’s not often the case and certainly not reliably enough that it’d support a career.

Aren’t the funded childcare hours ultimately there to get mothers back working after kids so they can contribute to tax (which we need more people doing)? I can see an argument if a 1-1 or other support cost less than the parent would pay in tax if they were working, but if not no.

It’s not a direct comparison, not all children will disabilities will be unable to avail of the 30 free hours.
Then there are other things those parents have available to them, respite care and DLA which can allow them to have more time if their DC needs care.

Isn't the problem mostly that private nurseries don't offer this care as it's fundamentally unprofitable for them?

My children used to attend a private nursery which was really expensive (in a wealthy area) and there were a couple of physically disabled children requiring 1-2-1 care. I presume that either the parents were finding this or it was absorbed into the costs for everyone else (which they could afford, the nursery was amazing and also I would assume the majority were not on the funding as one parent would have been earning over £100k).

The point of the funding is to get women to work and pay taxes so I suspect any solution which cost more than the tax take recouped would not be palatable to the UK treasury.

I think there may be different levels of need been discussed here

If a disabled child can access school - then i agree regarding both parents sharing the care

The difficulty is that some families don’t have access to childcare and schools. A nursery/ school place isn’t much use if a child is on a reduced timetable/ can’t manage the setting/ frequently sent home or there simply isn’t a provider able or willing to meet needs

It’s not a direct comparison. However, in fairness all working parents should be entitled to free childcare whether your child is disabled or not.

The hours of free childcare don’t suit most working patterns.

Well the funding is provided in group setting care, this is how they keep costs lower. If a child can't manage school, they won't cope in group childcare either. This sounds largely like ND children you're talking about.

There isn’t enough money in the system to provide basic supports to families with disabled children. I don’t know any family who gets regular respite care for their child, some use their support budget for an assistant for their child but that’s usually a few hours a week. Finding someone who can care for your child, that the child can tolerate is very difficult. There isn’t a population of child care providers who can provide care for kids with complex needs.

The landscape is a tricky one, and one which money alone won’t fix. I’ve been able to continue working but that’s relied on incredibly flexible employers and me being able to juggle lots of moving parts. At one point I thought I might need to stop because of the realities of having a child in specialist provision, a complete lack of childcare at age 12+ and another child in a different setting. Money was the least of my worries in trying to make it work.

My child never went to childcare or had full enrollment at school. There were times they had no enrollment, sometimes for years. We managed it on our own because we had to. My career suffered because the cost of help making it very not worthwhile and it was in the best interests of our child. My husband should probably have stepped up more. I had no other family to help. Those are the breaks sometimes. I chose to have a child, it was my responsibility to manage. I don't think I am entitled to anymore than any other working mother and probably got more because of help with therapies.

My friend’s 5 year old is severely disabled, due to brain damage at birth caused by negligence.

Her son has fully funded care 12 hours a day and some nights, and both parents are able to work full time.

I don’t know what the qualifying criteria is though.

If the parent isn't working then the childcare isn't needed, so no it shouldn't be paid as a cash equivalent.

Do you think that mothers of disabled children should be expected to absorb that loss of earnings, pension contributions or should society recognise and compensate for their caring responsibilities

if a mother cannot work because childcare doesn’t exist - this is not her fault. the lack of support is often the reason she can’t access employment in the first place

There's both a shorter term issue here- should childcare be accessible to all DC on the same basis?- and a longer term one. The longer term one is about lifetime disadvantage for the primary carer (almost always the mother) which leaves them very vulnerable to poverty, having to stay in an abusive relationship, poor pension provision, higher rates of ill health etc etc. You are much more likely to be a LP if you have a disabled child. You are likely to have poor geographic mobility because you need to access the specific services you've had to fight for. All this costs the government even more in the long run.

A huge chunk of the issue tends to be the bits around the edges of the school and nursery day- wraparound and holiday care specifically. It's very difficult to find. Increased specialist provision here would go a long way. Having some DLA doesn't make up for that care not being available anyway, and in most cases wouldn't touch the sides for 121 care. It's both a gendered issue and a equalities issue more broadly.

It’s the mothers and fathers choice for the mother to take on the caring role. I think when you decide to have children you are responsible for them. Given we know that many disabilities such as autism are hereditary, people know there is a higher risk you’ll have a child that will require more care therefore you’re making a choice to have a child knowing you’ll need to have to give up work.

We seem to have moved to a position where people believe if they have any issues/challenges the state should sort it out and compensate them financially. Many people knowing they have a child with needs then go on to have more children (with a high risk of them having needs). You see posters on here with 3,4 children all with needs.

So no I don’t think the state should basically just keep giving financial support for everyone’s choices, if you’re at home you’re not working so you can look after your child!

It's not just a case of throwing money at it though, particularly in the case of children with SEND who attend school. As pp have said, wraparound and holiday care is practically impossible and school-hours-only jobs are rare and poorly paid.

We receive DLA and as a result our TFC government top up cap is double what you get for a non-disabled child. The LA offers respite payments as well. Trouble is there are no local providers of suitable activities or care, so there is basically nothing useful to spend it on. For example there are dozens of local adverts near me looking for personal assistants/nannies/childminders for young people with additional needs. The jobs never seem to get filled.

Pare of disabled children can get benefits.

I have disabled children and I don't work. Dh works but doesn't get paid much. He also volunteers a lot because he can fit that round the dc and their needs.

In an ideal world there should be funded or partly funded care for children and adults with SN but I think that wouldn't happen because it's cheaper to have benefits for families whose children can't access mainstream child care.

I think it’s a really tricky one, with no perfect answer really.

I’d be wary of it being essentially a compensatory payment made because if nothing else then that could end up reinforcing that women should stay home & not work, which is against the ethos of the working parents help completely and could undo a lot of the work being done to help parents- particularly impacting women- in the workplace.

I would prefer to see us investing more money in making childcare settings more inclusive, with better & more readily available support, than see payments set up in lieu of childcare because it is about so much more than just the temporary money. It’s social development, learning, it’s a woman’s career progression, earnings, pension.

There are children with such profound needs that mainstream childcare whether nursery or school just cannot safely provide care but in my own experience most children do not fit into that category- lots of children could be in nursery/school if there was more funding & support and that’s where I would prefer to see more money spent.

Also agree with PP’s points that the government are not responsible for compensating everybody for everything, we don’t have the money to do that, not without increasing the tax all working people pay and I don’t know that that would be fair either.

Yes, because having children is a risk and sometimes, family members need care. That’s just part of life.

parents in the position you describe are supported by plenty of different benefits, with no cap to how much free money they can receive. Disabled children have their right to education. Parents don’t need or deserve compensation because their child has different needs to most.

From my experience of working with disabled children, the majority of parents can still work if they want. They may not be able to do what they did before they chose to have children and they may have more logistics to organise than other parents, but many many parents of children with severe disabilities can and do work.

It doesn’t only affect parents of disabled children though, plenty of working parents who work in the healthcare field or do shift work don’t get to avail of the 30 funded hours in a way that benefits them either.

If parents of a disabled child wanted to work and maintain pension contributions they could do shift work around eachother, as many other parents do.

I don’t think paying them the equivalent cash if the funded hours is really the solution at all.

As the mother of a disabled child, it is on me to work it out. That's the dice you roll when you have a child. You meet their needs even if it costs you. Yes, I do save the taxpayer a lot by doing it but I want what is best for my child. I couldn't work for years and years because there was no school suitable for my child. I mean, I could have made the choice to send them to an unsuitable school so I could work even though it would have been traumatic for them, but I put them first. My choice. The support that is available for therapies and so on is appropriate. My husband pays into my pension.

I'm not sure it's that simple. I mean, I agree with the first sentence or two. We are in a time where a lot of parents don't know they have always been autistic until they have a child diagnosed. It often wasn't recognised for gen X unless they were severely affected. People might not know they carry all sorts of genes till later.

My child is medically disabled by severe illness. I had four children before I even knew we had any faulty genes. As far as I was concerned, all my children were perfectly healthy. Too late to put them back then. I couldn't possibly have known this time bomb was lurking.

Parents don't always know. By the time they do, they might have completed their family. It could happen to you too.

And of course disabilities can be acquired. Yes of course technically you can choose if the mother or father is the primary carer (and in our case, it's the father) if you are completely immune to wider forces like:

-the gender pay gap
-women being more likely to be the lone parent
-the prevalence of DA
-every single professional you come across assuming that as the mother, you're the primary carer and also don't work

No one makes those decisions in a vacuum. Disability - and unpaid caring- is absolutely a feminist issue.

If there was consistent, proper state provision and if men took equal responsibility for their children, then fine. But there is not, and they do not. This does make it a state issue because there is a structural inequality there.