why do adoptive parents have better rights than biological ones?

kindofagilr

iamana1ias wrote: »

He can take some of his annual leave then, can't he?

He certainly can and out of the pathetic 22 days (of which 3 have to be taken at Christmas when the office is shut) he will be taking some leave but not at the start of my maternity.

We'd rather he had two random weeks off in the summer or something instead.

ninky_2

kindofagilr wrote: »

I do agree with you OP and I think a lot of people on here are getting the wrong end of the stick with your post.

For example some of them presumed you were a man and wanting your missus leave lol.

.

yes i gathered that! us women have to keep our own sexism in check too sometimes it seems. it is actually liberating to women NOT to have to take full responsiblity for childcare. but for that to be the case we have to give equal rights to men to be able to take responsiblity. i think this happens already in progressive countries like norway.

the added bonus would be that the often unspoken sexism that exisits in terms of female recruitment where employers worry about taking on women of childbearing age because they might ask for parental (maternity) leave would be greatly reduced.

Fly_Baby

ninky wrote: »

regarding the breastfeeding thing. research now suggests that it is male hormone levels that effect development in the womb and problems breastfeeding and that bottle feeding is not harmful to the baby. plus you can 'express' if you want to! anyhow - i just think there should be freedom of choice.

I don't think breastfeeding was ever considered harmful. They just say that breastfeeding provides more benefits (although in some other cultures there is a major debate on that going on).

onlyroz

I think the flexibility should be in place so that families can do what is best for them. For me, it would have been much better if my husband could have taken the bulk of the parental leave - because I earn more than him and living off SMP for six months was quite a hardship for us. As a result, I was only able to take four months maternity leave, and my husband was not able to take any more than the basic two weeks.

Person_one

He can take some of his annual leave then, can't he?

I feel really sorry for men who are separated from their new children after just two weeks. Surely it would be better for the baby too to have two parents around for as long as possible to bond with him/her?

Yes, there is always going to be a natural unfairness because only women have to carry, give birth to and breastfeed the baby but once its born surely both parents should be equally responsible and involved? I think individual families should be given a certain amount of time of paid leave and they can arrange between themselves who takes it and when. Not one size fits all!

I like the Scandinavian systems personally.

CG77

ninky wrote: »

adoptive parents are entitled to take statutory adoption leave for up to 52 weeks. they get to divide this up how they wish between the parents. for biological parents this is not the case. it's only the woman who is entitled to the long leave 'maternity' pay and men have to make to with 2 weeks paternity.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Moneyandworkentitlements/WorkAndFamilies/Adoptionrightsintheworkplace/DG_10029406

surely this is blatantly unfair?

if paid parental leave is to be given, it should be up to the parents how they wish to divide it up (other than the minimum safe recovery time for the birth mother obviously which i believe is a couple of weeks).

the parental leave laws are a massive anachronism and i don't think would stand scrutiny in the european courts.

I'm slightly confused by this statement. As far as I understand it and providing nothing has changed in the past couple of years (I can't find anything to say it has but am willing to be proved wrong!), only one parent can take adoption leave, with the other being entitled to 'paternity' leave. Maybe I'm totally missing the point? (It wouldn't be the first time! )

CG. x

ninky_2

CG77 wrote: »

I'm slightly confused by this statement. As far as I understand it and providing nothing has changed in the past couple of years (I can't find anything to say it has but am willing to be proved wrong!), only one parent can take adoption leave, with the other being entitled to 'paternity' leave. Maybe I'm totally missing the point? (It wouldn't be the first time! )

CG. x

yes but they have the choice of which parent (i.e. it is not gender dependent) whilst biological parents do not get this choice.

CG77

Yes that's right. It was the phrase 'they get to divide this up how they wish between the parents' which confused me. They can't divide it up-only one parent can take it.

I can see a few reasons-the adoptive mother needs no recovery time as others have mentioned, so doesn't need to be at home to recover/breast feed etc. Also, the same sex thing has to have been a consideration when setting the rules. But by far the biggest reason has to be that in terms of adoption, in almost every single case nowadays (relinquished babies are extremely few and far between today), the child will have been subjected to some level of 'trauma', be it neglect, physical, mental or sexual abuse, or just the removal from their bieth family and all that they know. For these reasons, the adoption agencies REQUIRE that a parent stays at home for at least six months in almost every case, and a full year in many cases. They are not allowed to adopt the child without taking this leave to help settle them in at home (in many cases parents find they can't go back at all as the child's needs are such that they need to be with them at home on a permanent basis). In order to facilitate the finding of a family for these children therefore (many of whom can be extremely hard to place as a result of their background and resulting ongoing issues), prospective adopters are given the choice of which parent they decide to have as the primary carer, so as to eliminate as much as possible financial reasons not to go ahead with the adoption.

CG. x

ninky_2

CG77 wrote: »

Yes that's right. It was the phrase 'they get to divide this up how they wish between the parents' which confused me. They can't divide it up-only one parent can take it.

I can see a few reasons-the adoptive mother needs no recovery time as others have mentioned, so doesn't need to be at home to recover/breast feed etc. Also, the same sex thing has to have been a consideration when setting the rules. But by far the biggest reason has to be that in terms of adoption, in almost every single case nowadays (relinquished babies are extremely few and far between today), the child will have been subjected to some level of 'trauma', be it neglect, physical, mental or sexual abuse, or just the removal from their bieth family and all that they know. For these reasons, the adoption agencies REQUIRE that a parent stays at home for at least six months in almost every case, and a full year in many cases. They are not allowed to adopt the child without taking this leave to help settle them in at home (in many cases parents find they can't go back at all as the child's needs are such that they need to be with them at home on a permanent basis). In order to facilitate the finding of a family for these children therefore (many of whom can be extremely hard to place as a result of their background and resulting ongoing issues), prospective adopters are given the choice of which parent they decide to have as the primary carer, so as to eliminate as much as possible financial reasons not to go ahead with the adoption.

CG. x

what about gay dads who use a surrogate and then 'adopt' the child?

CG77

ninky wrote: »

what about gay dads who use a surrogate and then 'adopt' the child?

I have to admit to having no idea how that works (I've never come across anyone who's done it or who knows anyone who's done it), but in the vast, vast majority of UK adoption cases the bit in bold applies and I'm certain that is the reason for those decisions on adoption leave to have been made.

CG. x