PrintThe biggest revelation to me is that paternity leave must finish before 56 days following the birth. When his baby is not even two months old.
So Dad should have two weeks off work at a low rate of pay before his baby can even see properly (at one month they focus best on objects 8" to 15" away). Baby will sleep for up to 18 hours out of 24 and during waking hours will feed and look around a little (though not sure what they can see) then go back to sleep.
At the risk of offending many fathers, I'm convinced Dads aren't very interested in this stage of their child's life. The mother-baby bond is vital. But unless Dads are going to help Mum by doing the vacuuming or cooking dinner then it seems a futile two weeks to spend with their new baby.
If paternity leave could be taken at any time before the child is say five, would that make a difference? No matter how 'equal' the sexes may want to be, mothers need to care for their babies in the early stages (it's an evolutionary issue) and Dads aren't particularly useful then. Later on, they might be more willing to take the £123 and take their child to school on their first day or spend a half term with them or teach them to swim.
My husband went back to work the following day after my daughter was born. I enjoyed running things and organising my day.
And I'm sure I'm not unique when I say that evenings could be a bit of a strain. He'd let our daughter fall asleep on his chest (lovely for him) and I'd struggle to set good sleeping habits so she'd sleep in her (comparatively cold, flat) cot. Frankly I found some of it disruptive. Their relationship has really taken off over the last few years though.
Perhaps I'm wrong and maybe they would be even closer if he'd have been there full-time for the first two weeks or so. I'm doubtful.
Looking at it from a man's perspective, being around my partner after she's just given birth and is utterly involved with the baby isn't that appealing. ('What about me? You don't look at me like that anymore, do you?') Natural jealousy and a feeling of being excluded might be exacerbated and that could spell trouble. Better he's out at work feeling needed. That's not a snipe at men, I'm trying to imagine how I'd feel.
I'd feel I was a sort of appendage. I could learn to change a nappy and bath the little one but isn't that pretending anyway? I'd be going back to the office/building site/shop/war zone in two weeks anyway and chances are Mum will be left to do it all by herself.
The BBC reports that almost half of Dads don't take paternity leave because they can't afford to. I just have a feeling there's a little more to it than that. In between the lines I can read, 'What's the point of missing two weeks of work for that money and no one even noticing me?'
The times I've most needed my husband to be around weren't immediately after our daughter was born. I was obsessed with my baby and sadly may not have noticed if my husband had begun dressing as Braveheart and sporting long, unkempt hair. Hmm, mind you...
Children need their fathers at other stages in their lives. To help make that all-important Roman shield or first batch of misshapen biscuits or take them on their first camp-out or simply offer an insight into their working world.
Paternity leave should really be scrutinised. What do fathers actually want? What would be most helpful to families, not just immediately after the baby's born (surely that's one of the easiest phases)?
It shouldn't be about token gestures that make the UK appear forward-thinking. It has to offer fathers and their children something of real value. Where the time really means something.
Otherwise it's a bit like a gift voucher you have to use within one week. It encourages a rush purchase then six months later you find something you really want to spend it on. But too late. Have a long expiry date and the flexibility to exchange it for something that's considered and desired. There, sorted.
