Inequality in paternity leave

[Msfickle]

I'm 25 weeks pregnant and planning on going straight back to work after my baby is born. I run my own business and earn four times the salary of my husband. It makes perfect sense for him to therefore give up work.

I have just looked into the new paternity legislation and it seems that he is only eligible to apply once the child is 20 weeks old. So basically in order to go on paternity leave he has to give up his job altogether?

Seems to me that this is downright inequality and just another way of insisting that mothers take at least five months maternity leave which whilst great for some is just not practical for others.

I plan to write to Iain Duncan Smith but wondered if anyone else had any thoughts on this?

Could he use parental leave to cover the gap (check out direct-gov - it might be appropriate)

I agree though - I think that the leave should all be parental leave (as it is in Canada - although no-one gets paid for it) - the equality would help everyone - and help to silence those employers that stupidly waffle on about not hiring women of child-bearing age (although perhaps I shouldn't discourage that - some of my best employees have had children while working with me - I wouldn't want to lose them)

Well I think saying it's another way of insisting mothers take at least five months maternity leave is a bit too far. You only have to take 2 weeks, and there are childcare options for those mothers who want to go back that soon.

However if you don't want to use any childcare your options are obviously reduced.Your husband can take two weeks Ordinary Paternity Leave, which doesn't have to be immediate, so you could take two weeks then he could take two weeks, meaning there are 16 weeks to cover, assuming you literally want to go back at two weeks.

Your husband could take parental leave and holiday to cover some of that time if that's something his employer will accept. Or he could ask for unpaid leave for a time.

Having said that, you mention that he will be 'giving up work', presumably meaning he will not go back to work after his Additional Paternity Leave

I wouldn't bother writing to Ian Duncan Smith. They didn't want to legislate for APL at all!

The Lib Dems are keen to make less restrictions to APL so may be better to write to them?? Personally I'd like to see it be more flexible so families can have real choice but considering what we had just over a year ago we're not doing too badly. It is also worth thinking about the situation you would be in if your husband were self-employed and you were the employee. He would not be entitled to any paternity leave at all. So you might want to add that to your letter

As Flowery says use paternity leave, use annual leave and your husband could even ask work if he could take time off unpaid before his APL starts (no harm in asking).

How much did you plan to take?
Between your dh taking leave/parental leave he could have 11weeks ish (5 weeks a/l ,4 weeks parental leave, 2 weeks paternity leave).

You don't know his employer! They are inflexible enough as it is so there is absolutely no opportunity for unpaid leave and that would be the only way he would be able to keep his job.

Giving up work is probably the wrong terminology. He'd like to keep his options open so cover the first six months and then make a decision when the little one is a bit more able to go back to

Childcare is not really an option because it would cost us more in childcare than he gets paid and besides I don't think either of us would be comfortable with handing over a two week baby to a nanny. We'd both rather that she is with one of us and in our case it makes more sense for her to be with Dad given the circumstances.

Libdems are not in govt and are never likely to be so not sure what use writing to them would be?

I will check out parental leave though as I am not too sure what that is so could be an option.

I think the other frustration is that if I were taking MAT leave I would be entitled to statutory pay which although isn't much is at least something. As it will be him looking after baby and not me we'll miss out on that. That to me feels unequal. Surely parents are parents regardless of whether they are mum or dad?

erm, the Lib Dems are in the coalition..? even if they are virtually useless IMHO They are keen to extend the options for leave after a baby whereas the Conservatives are not keen on paternity leave at all. Therefore it's probably not worth writing to them because they have fundamental issues with the concept in the first place.

You are probably entitled to Maternity Allowance which is almost the same as SMP, you don't get the enhancement for the first 6 weeks but it's not nothing. You apply via Job Centre Plus (awful place but needs must).

Information about parental leave here www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Moneyandworkentitlements/WorkAndFamilies/Parentalleaveandflexibleworking/DG_10029416

LOL Katie I have just laughed at the fact that I had 'forgotten' that the libdems are in fact in the coalition!

Thanks for all the info though - will check it out

Your DH would have the right to a month's unpaid Parental Leave - would that help at all?

Does anyone know why the father can only take his share of the maternity leave after 20 weeks? Presumably there was some rationale behind it but I can't imagine what!

the Conservatives are not keen on paternity leave at all

Actually the Conservatives said in 2008 that they want to make parental leave completely flexible, allowing parents to take the time off together and giving them a lot more freedom as to how to divide the maternity leave allocation between them. To quote David Cameron, "So if Mum and Dad want to take time off together at the beginning let them do that ... don't say that the woman has to take 26 weeks."

The LibDems didn't come up with their policy (which is to provide 19 months parental leave shared between the parents with SMP/SPP payable throughout) until the following year as far as I can tell.

I don't really care whose policy it is. The fact remains that for all the (very positive changes) if you're the Dad and you want to take the first 20 weeks, you cannot!

I agree it could better and indeed I want it to be better (is one of my hobby horses and something I actively lobby for) and I also don't think any of the political parties have this very high on the agenda but I don't believe in flogging a dead horse either which IDS (from what I've heard) most definitely would be.

Who's idea it is or was (it was Scandinavia I think ) I don't really care. I'd just like it still improved further while acknowledging just how far we have come - the current regulations are arguably one of the most significant victories for family, womens' and fathers' rights for many years. It's been a while since I looked at this and at the risk of getting political, the Conservatives might have had the rhetoric but it was only the Lib Dems who had it in their manifesto at the last election. Not that the manifestos seem to mean much these days...

OP you may get more joy from pressure groups lobbying for equal rights, rights for fathers, rights for families and rights for women. Pm if you'd like some details but The Fatherhood Institute is worth a look www.fatherhoodinstitute.org

Actually it was in the Conservative's manifesto on p42 - "We will introduce a new system of flexible parental leave which lets parents share maternity leave between them, while ensuring that parents on leave can stay in touch with their employer". Sorry - I can be a bit obssessive about getting facts right.

The government intends to introduce shared parental leave in 2015. They had a consultation on it last year.

It's to protect women and breastfeeding.

The first three months is considered the fourth trimester.

BF on demand is recommended for at least 6 months and bottles are potentially damaging to the developing jaw.

5 months falls short of this.

Childcare options do not come out of HIS salary if you are talking about equality. They come out of the family income whatever that might be.

Ah see prh I took that to mean they wouldn't change the plans for additional paternity leave that came in to force after the election but that had been developed pre-election.

I quite like this analysis of the main political parties manifestos regarding fathers for 2010 www.fatherhoodinstitute.org/2010/fathers-in-labour-conservative-and-liberal-democrat-manifestos/

And now I'm done because this is turning into a bit of a hijack. Sorry op.

Yes it is rather. This is NOT about govt manifestos and who is doing more. This is about the law as it stands and feeling that it is unequal.

Katie your advice and links are great, thanks will check them out.

I do believe that the point about bf is getting to the truth of the matter. This is what the govt believes we should be doing and this is why the law is as it is.

Sorry but jawlines etc is a load of modern day bollax as far as I'm concerned. There are PLENTY of children in this country who are not breast fed who do just fine - myself included.

The point is the right to choose and for the law to be equal to reflect that.

I entirely agree that parental leave should be interchangeable.
However I am a little confused by your post, as you imply that you won't be using childcare because your dh doesn't earn enough. Is he actually wanting to take paternity leave and then return? Or give up work?
Btw- childcare costs come from BOTH of you so you shouldn't see it as his wage not covering it. Even if you are the higher earner you should view it as a joint expense incurred by both of you working

I would have thought your best bet is to use a cm or nanny for the early weeks. Looking after a 2 or 3 week old baby is probably easier than looking after an older one because it will literally feed/sleep/feed/sleep

It only seems strange to leave such a young baby because most women take longer ML now- but really there is no reason why returning earlier shouldn't work out for you. I know it's not as young as your baby will be, but mine were left with a cm at 12 weeks as that was the norm back then. Worked out fine.

I am still confused though about what the long term

Oops - the long term?
You talk of paternity leave which implies your dh will then return to work. If so- you will need to use childcare then. If he is actually planning to stop working and be the main carer, then he doesn't need to wait until 20 weeks- he can just stop straight away.

Ps- I think it's important to recognise that things are improving though . Even just 20 years ago there was no paternity leave at all. Fathers would take the day off for the birth and be back in the office next day. I remember being astounded and very envious when younger friends had their dh home for a fortnight. I think there will always be room for improvement with such things but thank god for the movement in the right direction.

I still think , op, that if your dh is going to take leave rather than give up, your best bet is to find childcare for the early part, then he takes some leave and then you resume childcare. But you said in the op he will be giving up work- so not sure where the leave part comes in?

I think we had assumed initially that paternity leave wouldn't be an option so that he would have to give up and then find a new job later on when he felt ready to go back.

Then we realised that the paternity/maternity laws had changed do that he could be the main cared (for first six months). When we looked into it we found that this law existed.

If it costs you more in childcare than one parent earns individually then surely it's natural to view it this way? Yes it's a shared expense but there's little point in shelling out more in childcare than one parent earns!

I do appreciate that things are better than the used to be and better than alot of countries. BUT shouldn't we keep on fighting for equality. It's kind of like saying that when women over 30 got the vote that we should be grateful as its better than it was!

I agree with your points about equality. But not about childcare costs. MANY people work even though childcare takes the equivalent of one wage. By the time dc2 was born, our nursery fees cost pretty much exactly what I earned. I still worked, for all the other reasons working is a good idea - the stimulation, long term security etc. I didn't see it as all my money going on childcare- the children belonged to us both, we both wanted to work, so it was a joint expense, just like the mortgage or other bills.

If your dh is planning to take paternity leave and return, you need to accept now that childcare may cost the equivalent of his earnings, but this doesn't mean he's 'paying' for it. It just puts you in the same position as many families. If he is planning on giving up and being the full time carer (as your initial post suggested) then he is probably best off stopping as soon as you return to work and then there is no need to look for childcare at all.

I think it's a big personal choice to be honest. I totally understand why some people continue to work even though it doesn't benefit them financially and when my husband goes back to work that will no doubt be the case.

I think we both feel that we'd prefer one parent to look after the baby whilst they are still very young rather than handing over to a childminder. I think we're also get hung up on the way I phrased my initial post 'my husband will give up work'. It was never our intention for him to give up work forever but with paternity rights being as they are it is our only choice if he wishes to take on parenting responsibilities for the first six months.

If it's intended to protect / encourage breastfeeding, it doesn't really work, does it? It doesn't prevent the mother from returning to work early, it just means that if she does then the baby has to be cared for by a nanny / other adult rather than the father (assuming he doesn't want to give up his job completely).

In any case, I don't get the impression that the low breastfeeding rates in this country are particularly due to women going back to work too soon. Are breastfeeding rates any higher among SAHMs? (genuine question, I have no idea of the answer)

...It also implies that you can't breastfeed and work which of course many women do!

Good question... I have no idea either. I know there is a socio-economic link with bf, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is some connection with working. But even if there is a correlation, that doesn't mean there's a causal link. I agree that I don't get the impression that returning to work is a reason why some people dont bf. When I returned to work I continued early morning and evening bf and most of my friends with similar age babies did too. Anyway, there is legislation protecting the right for women to express milk if necessary during the working day.

Callme, I don't believe paternity leave is about equality.

It is about chucking you out of hospital 4 hours after the birth instead if 10 days later.