I hate the expression full time parent!

[Jbr]

It is always the term given to parents who don't have a job. Well, lets be honest, MOTHERS who don't work. (Men don't get these labels do they? In fact the very idea that a man wouldn't work because he has children rarely seems to crop up anyway!).

But my point is, I saw Carole Smillie on the front on a magazine saying "Why I could never be a full-time mum" which I inferred as "Why I could never give up work" or something similar. I would hope even if she worked on the Moon 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, she would still be a "full time mum". In fact I wish she would go to the Moon and take Carol Vorderman (another woman who wishes she didn't work - believe it or not - and once said she wishes she could stay home and be a "proper" mother!!) with her. You are still someone's mother whever you are. Why do people think being a mother means one thing and being a dad means doing something else?

Sorry I just had to rant!

Rara, assuming that there was a private nursery or creche near the hospital, then I think you are right. On the other hand if there was no other on-site childcare then I think highly paid employees should have the same rights of access to the childcare as their lesser paid colleagues. Whatever the pay, parents want to be near their very young children to be able to deal with emergencies and to visit the children during breaks etc.

Just thought I'd add a couple of facts I have at my disposal. I fantasised recently about giving up work to look after my daughter at home, and so investigated how much WFTC we'd be entitled to. With my husband's take home pay of £1000/month, we could get £10/month. Not that this would make my plan viable, as we currently spend £1400/month (excluding nursery fees, and things like holidays and home improvements). In fact, when I do give up work to look after 2 children (God willing), I would need to get a weekend job, and therefore not get any WFTC anyway.

And regarding wages for looking after your own children - I was talking to an ex-colleague of mine the other day who has a toddler and lives in France. They get quite generous maternity payouts but these are given to everyone regardless of whether you work or not. My friend went back to work earlier than I did, so maybe they don't keep your job open for as long as they do in the UK. But anyway, she only pays about £250/month for nursery, (I pay about £500), so in fact, the opportunity cost of staying at home is much higher than it is here. Then the school day is much longer in France (8am-4pm when I was an au pair, even for 7 year olds), and after-school clubs available. So working mothers very much encouraged by the state at least.

Ok, I have done some research on this and searched the WFTC site, this is what they say on childcare:

[The childcare tax credit provides extra help for people who spend money on eligible childcare (childcare registered with local authorities and some out-of-school facilities). You can apply if:

You and your partner each work 16 hours or more a week or
you are a lone parent working 16 hours or more a week or
that you are one of a couple where one partner works 16 hours or more a week and the other is incapacitated and
you care for children of qualifying age and pay for eligible childcare.

The childcare tax credit is worth 70% of your eligible childcare costs up to a maximum cost of £135 for one child and £200 for more than one child.]

Hope this clears that matter up. So there is more of an incentive for mothers to go out to work, whereas SAHM's can only hope to receive WFTC so long as their partner's do not earn too much. There are no other incentives to stay at home that I know about.

Sorry the maximum costs mean that you can get a maximum of £94.50 per week for one child and £140 for two or more.

Nice one Rhubarb, we're not all going mad after all, the money towards childcare does exist.

well it sems to me, that there is a choice whether to have children or not!there is enough contaception out there not to make mistakes - and if the contraception fails you still have a choice - if that choice isnt a choice - for religeos reasons then perhaps one mistake but two...three.. no! and all this moaning about whether you get paid to stay at home!!! give me a break, that would mean all the estate mums who have 6 kids get paid to pop out more sprogs ... thats where my bloomin tax goes!

Fair enough, but right now it seems that the government are paying us mothers to leave our kids with complete strangers and go to work, because that is what pays them after all, isn't it? SAHM's seem very old-fashioned and un-modern these days, there is no incentive at all to look after your own kids and yet I remember in the 80's a big uproar about latch-key kids and the problems they faced. Am I just being paranoid or has the government done another about face?

I think you have hit the nail on the head Rhubarb. I am not particularly moaning about wanting money to stay at home more the unfairness that if I went out to work I would receive funding towards childcare for a stranger to look after my children. As someone mentioned earlier SAHMs contribute "little or no tax revenue", it's sad that that's what it comes down to. Perhaps it would just be nice to be recognised as a vaguely intelligent woman, a useful member of the community who has chosen to stay at home to look after her children having made this choice believing it is the best choice for her family.

Custardo, both my children are very wanted (one still to be born) and planned, doesn't change the fact that finances can be difficult. To look at it another way my DH pays his fair share of taxes (although has unfortunately been out of work for one week now and is desperately trying to find another job before the situation gets bad enough to need to claim benefits) and because we have chosen the SAHM route are saving the Government from having to pay out towards our childcare (I would have only returned to work part time and therefore would not be paying much tax myself). Anyway it is only a thought .

ok then SOLVE the problem! you want to get paid for staying at home yes? so what about those who do get pregnant at 16 then 17 then 18 etc etc should they get paid for staying at home - when clearly in most cases they had no intention of doing anything else? should these girls get money for popping out sprogs all over the place? what rules should there be? only those who HAD a viable career option b4 they got pregnant get some money? only those with partners? how do you sort the wheat from the chaff ? oh and btw i wasnt suggesting that unplanned pregnancies / sahm's/ getting paid for it, had any connection to said child being unloved it just seems to me that there are a lot of middle class women whinging that they should get paid for having kids when it was a choice in the first place and through out this argument sahm's seem to forget that those of us who work - might actually love the lxury of staying at home with our kids but we are not financially able to do so, not that i would if i could cos i wouldnt. last point withstanding, anyone willing to focus on solving the problem of moaning M/C's and the darn good job they do with their little lovleys in front of the real log fire , whilst knitting and cooking organic food only ( ofcourse) bought from tesco's range ( ofcourse) except for the veggies in the garden and herbs in the window box - does anyone around here ever get their phone cut off cos they are skint - or worry about feeding their kids when financial situation changes and they have 2.50 left in pocket for a couple of loaves and 7p beans from aldi??? am off on a rant cos i get the idea this is a terribly blairite establishment ( take that as you may!! lol)

Why do you use the words "complete stranger" when referring to childcarers. If you know any one who works surely you will have seen the very close relationahips that parents have with their carers whether they are nannies, child minders or nursery key workers. In turn, generally the carers love their charges dearly.

Custardo, I promised not to say anymore in this debate but you have caught me on the way back up after a very bad fortnight. The work my DH does tends to be short-term contracts (he is currently trying to set himself up as self-employed as being jobless doesn't suit a couple with one child let alone with a second one due any week). He very rarely gets any sort of redundancy or even pay in lieu of notice and sometimes has very little notice that he has to finish the job, just the nature of the work he does, he goes in and solves problems for the company and then when they are sorted it's bye, bye. When he is working he earns just about enough to keep us going, we live in a flat with no garden, share a car, very rarely go out and shop in the sales and charity shops for clothes, this was our decision to enable me to stay at home. Even when DH is working I can find myself unable to afford to take DS swimming and trying to do a week's shopping on £25/£30. So to answer your question when financial circumstances have changed as in the last couple of weeks I have worried about feeding my family, we have had wonderfully nutricious meals like fried egg and oven chips, I have gone off on one at my DH because he has finished all the cheese in the house and have not had the money to replace the fruit in the fruit bowl when it ran out and have been trying to fill DS up on milk and toast in between meals. My DH has fortunately started a new job today for the next two to three months so it won't be long before the merry-go-round starts again!

As for the "luxury of staying at home with our kids". That is precisely my point, I don't think it should be a luxury, I think that every mother should have the choice, I am not saying it should be an easy choice, ie you stay at home and we pay you £20,000 per annum etc, but I think a little help should be there for women who believe it is right for them and right for their families. What the government does for teenage mums is one of my personal bug bares, but I wouldn't be quick to condemn them all, I'm sure there are easier ways of getting a house!

PS I am not middle-class

BTW I do have herbs on my kitchen windowsill, but they are all dead as in my pregnant state I have not been able to drag them in to attend to them. I had viewed this is a money saving thing, have you seen the price of fresh herbs!

Just thought I'd add my 2p worth. I am not a blairite - hate the labour government. I work part time but would rather not work at all given the choice but need to so that we can pay the mortgage and will need to in the future if we decide to send dd to private school. I resent the fact that I pay a lot of tax and my dh and I aren't eligible for tax credit and my taxes go to supporting some irresponsible lazy individuals who are not responsible. This does not I'm sure apply to anyone on this site.

I do feel it's a pity that I can't stay at home and would love to. We could cut down on certain things, move to a smaller house and out of the area we live in but neither of us want to do that. So I guess that in that sense it is our choice so we I have to put up with it.

I do think the government should test circumstances before people are allowed to have children - this will spark all sorts of debates I'm sure I don't mean financial circumstances either but honestly some people don't deserve to have children and abuse their roles as parents so much which I think is unforgiveable considering there are so many people who can provide a very loving environment and who desperately want children but can't have them. We scrutinise couples who want to adopt. What about all those slap happy (or perhaps I should say slappers !) mothers that don't give a s**t and just want the house and the benefits !

Rant over

Very contentious subject that, Tillysmummy. However, before everyone goes off on one, spare a thought for adoptive parents. I was adopted in 1968 so I don't know how much has changed and to what extent but my parents were close to being rejected from the process as my dad was 42 and only my mum's age (32) stopped this. They had to have x amount of health tests and interviews; the house was scrutinised - even the drains were checked! I'm not saying this shouldn't have happened - obviously social services have a responsibility to the child to look at the home and parents it is going to live with, but if your reproductive organs are in working order you can have a baby in whatever circumstances you like...

Exactly my point Rara. It seems so unfair and I think it's a good thing but it would also be a good thing to scrutinise all families to make sure they are suitable to parent. That doesn't mean money. It means able to offer the right love and care.

It makes me so cross when people talk about children being a luxury you should only have if you can afford them. Children aren't sports cars and Louis Vuitton bags, they are the future of our society and our species. In a sense they belong to all of us, and should be the responsibility of all of us because we all benefit if they turn out well and we all suffer if they turn out badly. And we all suffer particularly terribly if nobody has any and there's nobody to empty our dustbins/replace our hips/mow the lawn in the park/resurface the roads/fill our teeth etc etc etc. Children are as essential as air and water because if they didn't exist, we'd all die out (after a miserable, cold and desperate old age)! And that's why I do think the government should help with childcare costs so that people can afford a decent standard of care for their children, which will help the children get a good start in life and turn out as happier, better people. I think a tax/benefits system should help families where a carer stays at home. I also think better and much better funded state schools are essential to ensure that our future citizens are educated and useful members of society, and well educated girls are less likely to think that their only hope in life is to have children as young as possible. In fact, more educated a girl is, the more she delays childbearing. I think by not valuing children as our most precious resource for the future we risk making our society more dangerous and uncaring. And yes, as one day my son will be emptying your bins/operating on your hip and your kids will be doing the same for me, they are the responsibility of all of us, we are all in this together, whether we like it or not, which is really where this debate started, IMO. Goodness me, what a rant.

MMmmmm. No time to write much but a few quick thoughts:

• We all get tested before we have children? Hitler had the same idea I think.
• It's really easy living on benefits: Tried it? Thought not. SAHMs had the choice of whether or not to have children so should either put up and shut up or work if they want the money? Looking after children is work, is* most definitely contributing to society, whether you are a 16yo SAHM or a middle class Mail reader and it's a shame that this is not widely accepted and recognised.

Will post more later maybe.

Aloha I said several times in my posts that it's not about means testing. I'm not talking about money. I'm talking about being capable of looking after them. I saw a chat show on telly once where the mother was a cocaine addict and would leave her children alone at night to go out on the game to pay for her habit. And im sure the child benefit paid for her habit too !!!
That is what I am saying is wrong. I am not saying that people who are able to provide appropriate love and care - nothing to do with financial status, should not have children and I agree should receive help from the government. I am talking about children who are not cared for as I believe they should be - this IMO is wrong. Especially when there are plenty of people out there who wouldn't neglect and would give the children the stable and loving environment they need to grow up in to produce well rounded adults.

Everyone, this is NOT a class or money thing !!! I'm talking about 'care' not cash.

Also I know looking after the children is work and Im not debating that - I never stop with DD and come to work for a rest almost. And as I said it's our choice for me to work to stay in the house we are in- in an ideal world I'd rather not. And I feel sad everytime I leave her and we hope in a year or two and certainly by the time the next one comes along I won't be working.

The other thing I wanted to say and then my rant will be over is that I looked after my 14 and 13 year old cousins when I was only 21 myself because there parents were crap and unable to look after them. I ended up with just the one because the other ended up in a care home because she was too far gone but the one I kept was fine after receiving plenty of love and a stable environment. Previously she was all over the place, neglected, staying out till 3 in the morning and hanging around with people that carry guns ! That's what happened because her parents neglected her and I must add that they have TONS of money. Again, I'm not talking about financial circumstances.

Tillysmummy, how do you propose that such decisions are made? Who makes the decision? What are you proposing, sterilisation? One persons bad parenting may be anothers idea of perfect parenting (think controlled crying) Being a parent is a huge learning curve for all parents. Do any of us know we will be good enough parents when we begin the process?

As for the idea on this thread that 16 and 17 year old girls get so much from being young mothers... Mmmm...bizarre, I wouldn't want to swap with them. Young women who get pregnant deliberately are statistically rare indeed and those who do often do so because it is the only way of having any status in their lives. Jobs etc., just don't apply because they have never been shown other possibilities. People will very often quote a story of someone they 'know' or have 'heard of' but dig a bit deeper and it is often myth and gossip rather than fact. An exception does not prove a rule.

WWW, agree with you entirely, well said!!

Winnie I don't know how it would be done merely saying I think it should be done.

I agree about the different styles of parenting and I'm not talking about controlled crying or things like. I'm talking about people taking coke so they're too drugged up to look after the child properly and leaving children on their own, unattended at night. What if that child wakes and is frightened ?

Can anyone say they think that is right or they would consider that person fit to raise a child or children ?

None of us know if we will be good enough parents etc and we all do our best. But, if I had serious problems and couldn't care for my children to the best of my abilities I wouldn't have had any.

I just don't think all people take the role of parenting seriously enough.

Must resist... Cannot afford to become embroiled in Mumsnet debate whilst at work... Resist...
Thank God Winnie and WWW are on the case! Applause for them.

Tillysmummy, I agree that some people don't seem to take parenting seriously enough but whilst I don't want to continually make excuses for people we are not born into a vaccuum and often (although far from always) bad parenting is a product of bad parenting. Unfortunately, once we have children it is too late. Problems such as that which you refer to are the concern of social services on a practical level but equally of ourselves as members of society. I think that despite the bad press social workers get when one horrific and sad case comes to light there are many, many other cases that we hear nothing about precisely because they are successful. As one obviously cannot undo a childs life surely this is where society has to take over in the form a safety net in the form of foster care and adoption. How many of us would get involved and contact social services if we think theres a problem? How many of us would have a foster child or adopt even if we don't have fertility problems? And how many of us are prepared to say that we have to take some form of responsibility for having such a high teenage pregnancy rate etc., because all of these things are our responsibility however far removed they seem from our lives. Not that I am suggesting that we all sign up to be foster parents but we have to at least take on board the whole picture. To deny someone the right to having help and support(i.e the young pregnant girl) and also criticise her for getting in the situation in the first place is, IMHO extremely short sighted. Apart from anything else often there but for the grace of god goes many a young person. Whilst this is rather off the subject of the thread I think the point is are we individuals looking out only for ourselves or do we give a damn about our society as a whole? I definately think that whilst it has been very contentious, citizenship classes and parenting classes in secondary curriculums are an extremely good idea. In a family where there is ten years age difference between my daughter and my son we know that my daughter has no illusion about the reality of life with a small child. Possibly the best form of contraception in the world ! Maybe by teaching our children that they have responsibilities to society and that parenting is so much more that 'having a baby' there is hope for the future. Beyond that we need the resources and professionals to make our social services fulfil its role with the backing of a society that too easily cops out of individual responsibility and needs scaoegoats. Maybe the point is that whether we are parents in paid employment or not being the best parent we can be whilst looking out for each other is what is important, what we call ourselves is rather irrelevant.

But we are supposed to have safeguards in cases like the ones you describe with NSPCC and social services etc - they just don't work very well, as the Victoria Climbie case proved. Obviously you can't stop people having children - I wouldn't want to live a country that practised compulsory sterilisation on 'undesirables', would you? You just have to watch out when the kids are born and, if necessary, take them out of the environment and hopefully get them adopted. The trouble is, most so called care homes kids end up in are worse than the awful homes they are taken out of. And children tend to love their parents however awful they are and don't want to be taken away. It is awful that children are neglected and abused, it's unbearable, but that doesn't mean you should or could screen potential parents. That's just totalitarianism.