A woman dies in childbirth. Is she the surviving birthing partner or the surviving non birthing partner

[FannyCann]

Discussion re shared parental leave when a new mother dies in childbirth. Darren Henry seems at best confused, at worst doesn't seem to understand the legal status of mothers.

https://twitter.com/darrenghenry/status/1587791546585333763?s=61&t=YY_Bc3-ipYs7eO3Y2ymVvlw

I was asked who said good news and I said you did. You admit you did.

Context is relevant.

For example when I was 16 my friend was killed, her corneas gave two people their sight back, a third was given a new lease of life through a heart transplant, I was obviously sad at the loss of my friend, as was her family, but it was good news when her family had a letter from those who had benefitted from her death.

I haven't tried to define language for women, you did try to define it for me. I was talking about referring to something being good news in a story about a baby needing care and her father being denied that. It isn't a good news story and the important issue here isn't what we call people, it is about doing the decent thing and allowing the partner to take the maternity leave that can't be used due to a death.

That has got nothing to do with this poor baby and who is expected to be able to care for her.

I'm capable of holding two thoughts in my head at once @ancientgran - it's absolutely dreadful that this poor baby's mother has died and their father is not entitled to her leave to care for them.

It's also absolutely dreadful that the poor woman is being referred to as a birthing partner by an MP.

It is relevant in a debate about language which is what this thread is about.

In order to do the best for the bereaved husband and child, and for future bereaved fathers, clear language about the gap in the legislation enables everyone to quickly understand the situation and so will get more attention. Changing the legislation is what helps the baby and other babies and their fathers.

As per Hansard ” The current eligibility requirements differ between those for a surviving birthing partner and those for a surviving non-birthing partner. This meant that, in his case, he was not entitled to leave to raise his son.”

If the language of the legislation had been used it would state “ The current eligibility requirements differ between those for a surviving mother and those for a surviving father or partner. This meant that, in his case, he was not entitled to leave to raise his son.”

Which of those is easier to grasp? They both aim to say the same thing but for all the babies whose mothers die in childbirth surely it is much better to use the language in the Shared Parental Leave Regulations. That is why it is good news because no one can reasonably challenge the use of the second version which is also more readily understood by everyone and has a greater chance of success in changing the legislation.

Well you focus on the language and I'll focus on the baby. I'm amazed that anyone hearing that story would think twice about the language as I would have thought the focus would be on the baby and the baby's needs. The fact that the thread focuses on the less important issue is strange.

I think it is important to distinguish between Maternity leave and Parental/Shared parental Leave.
Maternity leave is for mothers and mothers alone. I don't believe it should be up for grabs to be transferred, even in the sad instance of the mother dying.
Which doesn't mean I don't think the other parent shouldn't have entitlement to leave to care for the baby.
People who obtain a baby via surrogacy are entitled to the same as adoptive leave I believe, and the surrogate mother still has her entitlement to maternity leave.
Perhaps it should be focussed on the baby's needs. A simple extension of parental leave to include the circumstance of the death of the mother should not be difficult to make an allowance for.

Clear language in writing law and HR policies means everyone can understand the intention of the law and what their entitlement might be.

I think I've got too many negatives there!

Which doesn't mean I think the other parent shouldn't have entitlement to leave to care for the baby.

That's better!

@ancientgran Are you really incapable of accepting that it's possible to discuss two different issues arising from one event?

The thread title makes it very clear that this discussion is about the language used.

@FannyCann Shared Parental Leave is definitely the right legislation for this scenario.

In the same way that maternity legislation covers still birth and the fact the mother still gets full Mat leave and SMP. SPL legislation can have a section inserted along the lines of “If a mother/primary adopter dies either before or during their maternity/adoption leave it is deemed they have consented to give up their SML/SAL and SMP/SAP in favour of the father or partner who will be caring for the baby/child. The eligible father or partner will be entitled to take the unused weeks as SShPL and SShPP. “

This way even if a mother or primary adopter dies for any reason e.g. cancer, car accident etc. at any point in the 52 weeks their surviving partner gets the rest as SPL.

Notes:
Mothers can give birth before they start their Mat leave.
A primary adopter can be male hence using “their”.

But what about the men who insist 'we are pregnant'? Surely their life is equally at risk during the birth, just as they have equally gone through all the physical and hormonal changes that the birthing partner/womb haver/meat incubator has gone through?

🙄