Flexible working and husband doing some childcare

Savvy_Sue

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Surely the same applies to women who work flexible hours to take care of their kids?

Up to a point, but as someone working a four day week it's astonishing how often a meeting is arranged on my day off, just because it's the most convenient day to get everyone together. And if you're there more days than not, your colleagues don't necessarily realise that you're not there every day either. It depends on the workplace and the culture.

Whereas if you are only there one day a week, people kind of get the message that if they want you at a meeting, they hold it on the day you're there!

And I did say we'd done this, didn't I. It wasn't usually me making arrangements which meant I couldn't be there when the other half thought I was doing the childcare.

onlyroz

For quite a while now we have had an arrangement where my husband does three long days (with a short lunchbreak) followed by two short ones (with no lunchbreak), so that he can do the "school run" on thursdays and fridays. On the other three days our son is picked up by a childminder. My own employer has agreed that I can arrive late, after dropping the kids off at school/nursery. This system works well for us - the downside is that hubby doesn't really get a lunch break, and he has to leave quite early in the morning for work, but on the plus side he gets to spend more time with our son, and he's at home by 3:30 twice a week. We also save money because I don't have to pay the child minder for every day of the week.

An employer doesn't *have* to grant a flexible working arrangement, but they've got to give a good business reason if they want to refuse you.

And I also think that all these reasons about "what happens if we split up" are nonsense - if you're thinking like that from the outset then I think the relationship is already doomed.

Savvy_Sue

onlyroz wrote: »

An employer doesn't *have* to grant a flexible working arrangement, but they've got to give a good business reason if they want to refuse you.

That's true, although I'm not sure every employer turning down such requests has thought of a 'good' business reason ...

That's why the requests most likely to be granted are the ones like your DH has clearly made, where he's set out how he's going to get his job done. It can be more difficult if you're after reducing your hours (whereas he seems to have re-arranged his!)

clearingout

onlyroz wrote: »

And I also think that all these reasons about "what happens if we split up" are nonsense - if you're thinking like that from the outset then I think the relationship is already doomed.

It's not 'nonsense'. It's just not something you think about when your relationship is strong. Whilst there are many fathers who will argue otherwise, the days of mums automatically getting residence of their children are gone - there is more and more a tendency to share care after divorce if humanly possible. What both gratefulforhelp and I were both pointing out is that this COULD happen in the event of the relationship breaking down. If there has already been a history of sharing care, that's the way it would probably stay if dragged through the court. It's something to think about, that's all. If you think you can cope with your children being introduced to the woman your ex left you for only 8 days after he walks out on you, has her living in his new home and expects your children to call her 'mummy', then by all means dismiss my response as 'nonsense'! Won't happen? Let me assure you, it does. And the most honourable and decent of fathers go down that route daily (as do many mothers).

Plans_all_plans

OP here again. Thanks everyone for your responses.

I'm not concerned about us splitting up and even I was, I'd be classed as the primary carer whatever happened, as I'd have the baby 4 days a week minimum.

My husband is not happy to work 4 long days as it would mean he wouldn't see our elder daughter at all on the 4 long days (when taking account of travelling time). Also, he feels they'd have a good business reaosn for refusing him, because his presence is needed 5 days a week (only full timer in the office) and the only one who has any idea about his job too.

I suggested him starting early and finishing early 5 days a week: again he thinks they'd refuse his request.

He is not very sociable and he seems to think men dont go to playgroup, so I'm not sure how much benefit the child would get from having him at home anyway. He would go to places like the park with the baby and possibly swimming, but other than that he is not one to mix! We are back to the drawing board!

onlyroz

clearingout wrote: »

If there has already been a history of sharing care, that's the way it would probably stay if dragged through the court.

So you're saying that mums should discourage any attempts by their partners to share the childcare just incase you split up and they try to take the kids off you? Sounds ridiculous, to me, and tremendously unfair to doting fathers.

It's also reasoning like this that keeps mums chained to the kitchen and dads chained to the office. You almost make it sound like a woman who dares to go back to work deserves to have her kids taken off her.

clearingout

onlyroz wrote: »

So you're saying that mums should discourage any attempts by their partners to share the childcare just incase you split up and they try to take the kids off you? Sounds ridiculous, to me, and tremendously unfair to doting fathers.

It's also reasoning like this that keeps mums chained to the kitchen and dads chained to the office. You almost make it sound like a woman who dares to go back to work deserves to have her kids taken off her.

Not at all. I worked just one day a week when my ex upped and left. He put everything he had into his girlfriend's name and refused to provide any support whatsoever which, given my meagre salary and a south-east mortgage was only going to mean debt and the house being repossessed. On top of that, having done his homework, he realised if the CSA ever managed to catch up with him (he's self employed, 2 years later they're still dilly-dallying!), he could reduce his liability by having the children half the time. So he suddenly didn't work 3 days a week. He did, he just left the kids with his mum, his girlfriend, his girlfriend's mum, his girlfriend's older child......and if he was with them, never took them anywhere or did anything with them or have friends for tea or go to the park or actually play with them. His neighbour even sought me out (and that wasn't easy) to let me know she was concerned about the welfare of our middle child (then 2) and she was going to inform social services. I am not suggesting my ex doesn't love his children or that they shouldn't be with him for half of the time if he actually devotes some time to them, but what I am suggesting is that it needs to be a situation which is in the children's best interests. It has cost me both emotionally and financially to get what is best for the children (who are now far more settled with me which is reflected in their school work and behaviour in school, according to their teachers). I don't want to see other people go down that road if I can possibly help it, that's all.

As I said, I think it's a good idea and you can't live your life on 'what ifs'. I think it needs leaving there.