Is he entitled to dependent leave

[Emeraldrings]

DS has chicken pox. Incredibly unlucky as he's had it before.
Absolutely no way I can take Monday off. DH can but he's had a warning for being off sick. Given this is his child who is ill would that count against him. If it's your child isn't it considered dependent leave? DH can't afford to lose his job and keeps saying he's not entitled to dependent leave but I thought everyone was. Is he entitled?
He's been there about 5 years so well over the 2 years mark if its relevant.

https://www.acas.org.uk/time-off-for-dependants

There isn't, as such, a clear right to unlimited time off (which can be unpaid) to care for a sick dependant. It is really time to arrange for someone else to care for them (not always practicable I know, but this is law). https://www.gov.uk/time-off-for-dependants

Technically the employer shouldn't use it against him, but if he has already had a warning for time off (and he knows his employer best) then he may be correct. It really depdns on the employer - where I work the two things would not be conflated, and it would be ok, at least for a day. But not all employers think the same.

Would he be allowed to take annual leave at short notice?

That law really needs to change. The idea that families have someone waiting in the wings to look after a sick child who isn't theirs at the drop of a hat is entirely unrealistic.

He definitely should not take this as sick leave. He isn't ill and if he's already had a warning about sick time then he would be in a very precarious situation. This is about looking after a sick and infectious child which is completely different.

If you have no-one else to call on then the bottom line is he needs to tell his employer he needs to look after his sick child and cannot come to work. He may be offered an unpaid carers day or given an annual leave day.
But carers leave is often only short term eg 1 day to cover emergency and allow time to make other arrangements.

He is 'allowed' the time off, all employed people are, but if he's already having issues with poor attendance it may not be the best idea... I agree with a previous poster about taking it as annual leave at short notice, is this an option for him?

Whilst I sympathise with the sentiment and agree that some parents have no alternative care, what would you like to change the law to? Employers are there to make a profit / get the job done. They are not social services. And I don't say that as an employer or even because I am pro-employer. This is a capitalist society and that the job of employers. We already know that maternity leave, flexible working etc., etc. has an adverse impact on employers approaches to employing and investing in (mainly) women of child bearing years. Not even all employees are sympathetic to parents rights (and that does include other parents, not just the childless) - take a look at some of the responses on threads here about working mothers taking the proverbial. Some of that fuelled by everyone else having to pick up the slack. Start introducing the right to days off at short / no notice (how many - 1, 2, 3 ...23?) because little Johnny isn't well on top of everything else, maybe throw in that it should be paid(?), and employers will increase their avoidance of women of "certain years". It may not be "fair", but people's reproductive rights are not an employers concern.

What is really called for is a creative and informed debate about how we manage parental responsibilities as a society, but that isn't going to happen unless (primarily) women in the workforce are valued by those who make policy. Sticking plaster reforms don't help parents.

He might get it as annual leave depending how many people are off. It's so hard when they're sick and you have no extended family.
It's not the employer's problem but no wonder some parents (usually women)don't go back to work until their children are older.

You'll probably need to sort more than just Monday off so maybe annual leave is the better option.

The whole of society needs to be better set up to support parents. Children are the future, even if you don't have children it will be them working that pays your pension. I don't really care if a law change would be unpopular. Working is not a luxury, it's a necessity. Why you would accept a system that drives people out of work, especially in an economic climate such as we see today, is completely beyond me.

It’s not sick leave so wouldn’t count against his sick record but annual leave would be a good option or paid/unpaid special leave. I think explain to work the situation and ask the best option to take it off

That old chestnut about todays kids paying our pensions…bollocks, in my 45 years of working full time I’ve paid into the system to get something back, I’ve paid loads of people universal credit, working tax credits and the like and had fuck all given to me, so piss off with that bollocks.

@Throwncrumbs wow you are a charmer aren't you! It's not that you personally haven't paid enough it's that there is a delay in the system so those working now pay for those who have worked. There is absolutely no guarantee you get that money that you pay in and you know it, it depends on society maintaining and not collapsing, people continuing to work and the whole population triangle not tipping over.

There's also something more fundamental. Children literally are the future "everything*, if you want police working when you are older, people need to have children. If you want nurses to look after you in the care home, that depends on others having children. Etc etc. People who refuse to see this are ignorant in the extreme.

Even if you had family to rely on, it is a big ask to expect to spend time with a kid with chickenpox or anything else that might be contagious. I could not ask my PIL to have DCs when they had it because they were worried about shingles and had to take unpaid leave.

I think you are missing the point. The "whole of society" doesn't give a f* about supporting parents. Not even other parents . There is no consensus, and wishful thinking won't change that. Nor will naivity - capitalism operates on the basis of being able to expand and contract the labour force at will. It doesn't care about the cost of living. Unemployment is an integral part of capitalism - it is as necessary to the economic system as employment is. It doesn't care about your living, never mind the cost of it. It's not that I disagree that we need a better debate and better solutions - just that I do not see it happening.

By the way, whilst it is true that for some people their pension may be paid for by future workers, that is not a great argument. When I claim my state pension I will still be paying for it through tax, as will many others, even if I choose to give up work. My tax bill annually will be about as much as the bloody pension! I am not alone in this, and I am not wealthy.

But shingles isn't triggered by exposure to chickenpox. It's the opposite in both senses.

Exposure to chickenpox helps boost immunity and prevent shingles.

Meanwhile people can catch chickenpox from direct contact with the shingles rash if they haven't already had chicken pox.