Any daddies take off all 12 weeks FMLA?

[z2akids]

Originally Posted by syfitz I would be upset about dh taking time he was "entitled" to take if it was unnecessary and put his ability to provide for us in the future in jeopardy. Like I said, as an employer, if I HAD to make cuts and I have two guys that do a great job, but one decided to recently take off 12 weeks to spend time with his family. It's a no brainer for me to decide who gets to stay. I don't think that is a wrong attitude for an employer to take and I think in most cases, that is what you'll find does happen.

I don't consider it unnecessary for a father to have time to bond with his children. My DH is very much a part of the care of our children. Whenever possible he attends medical visits, when I worked out of the house we alternated staying home with sick kids, etc. His presence in their lives is as important as mine and that starts right from the beginning - hence the reason that FMLA is not just for new moms.

If you were the one making the cuts and you picked between 2 people based on which one to FMLA most recently, you would be opening your company up to a huge lawsuit and potentially federal fines as well as compensation to the fired employee. As the employer, you better have a good reason outside of the FMLA to show why you laid off one person over another. Like I said, it does happen, but as employers become more and more aware of the consequences, it happens less and less. Employees do actually win these sorts of suits. I was involved with one back when I worked as a paralegal and the settlement for the employee was quite generous to avoid a trial.

Do you think that moms who work out of the house should return to work at the 4 or 6 week mark?

Honestly, I can understand not taking the leave because of the hit to the wallet from unpaid leave. But, I cannot understand thinking it is unnecessary and actually shows a lack of commitment to an employer. My DH never takes sick days, works o/t and is an incredibly valued employee at his company. But, his relationship with our children is as important to us as my relationship with them.

[MiaAnjuli]

The military gave my husband (and all husbands) 10 days off. He didnt take more time off because I think we were saving the leave for vacation that summer.

[syfitz]

Originally Posted by z2akids I don't consider it unnecessary for a father to have time to bond with his children. My DH is very much a part of the care of our children. Whenever possible he attends medical visits, when I worked out of the house we alternated staying home with sick kids, etc. His presence in their lives is as important as mine and that starts right from the beginning - hence the reason that FMLA is not just for new moms. If you were the one making the cuts and you picked between 2 people based on which one to FMLA most recently, you would be opening your company up to a huge lawsuit and potentially federal fines as well as compensation to the fired employee. As the employer, you better have a good reason outside of the FMLA to show why you laid off one person over another. Like I said, it does happen, but as employers become more and more aware of the consequences, it happens less and less. Employees do actually win these sorts of suits. I was involved with one back when I worked as a paralegal and the settlement for the employee was quite generous to avoid a trial. Do you think that moms who work out of the house should return to work at the 4 or 6 week mark? Honestly, I can understand not taking the leave because of the hit to the wallet from unpaid leave. But, I cannot understand thinking it is unnecessary and actually shows a lack of commitment to an employer. My DH never takes sick days, works o/t and is an incredibly valued employee at his company. But, his relationship with our children is as important to us as my relationship with them.

To the bolded, I don't either My dh has had time to bond with all of our children. He didn't need to stay home from work for the first 3 months of their lives to do so.
As far as maternity leave, I think women should return at the time that is right for their family taking all things into consideration (finances, childcare, physical well-being).
The post was about dad's taking 12 weeks leave while mom was also home, not how much maternity leave a mother should take. I don't view them as the same at all. Only mom goes through the physical and hormonal changes after childbirth.
I understand that the FMLA is important. I realize people do need to be protected from losing a job due to illness or other family obligations that are beyond their control. I just don't see using it unecessarily as a good idea. IMO, having more than one capable parent at home for 3 months to take care of a new baby isn't needed. I don't think that is the intention of FMLA. (I do understand it is legal to use it that way)

[katie's mom]

Would those of you that consider it to be unnecessary or possibly a detriment to the father's career feel at all differently if this was paid leave specifically for the purpose of bonding with a new child? I ask this because California pays both mothers and fathers for six weeks of paid leave for bonding. I've seen many very career driven, hard working men take this leave and by law it cannot affect your standing at work.

[syfitz]

Originally Posted by katie's mom Would those of you that consider it to be unnecessary or possibly a detriment to the father's career feel at all differently if this was paid leave specifically for the purpose of bonding with a new child? I ask this because California pays both mothers and fathers for six weeks of paid leave for bonding. I've seen many very career driven, hard working men take this leave and by law it cannot affect your standing at work.

No, I don't think I would. For one, I just think there are few jobs where an employees extended absence doesn't affect it. A company being fully supportive of leave taken after the brith of a baby and a company being required to allow that by law are two totally different things. I also really don't like the idea of the state paying for extended leave. But, California offers a lot of entitlement I don't agree with. (isn't it pretty much bankrupt at this point?)

[lostiejen]

When DD was born DH had just started a new job about three weeks earlier (she was preterm). It was his first "real" job and it was an amazing blessing and lucky break to even be considered. So he only ended up taking about 3 days off. We both wished it could have been more but he made up for it plenty when he was home. I haven't noticed any lasting effect or lack of bonding between them, which is of great comfort to me considering he probably wont be able to take more than a week or two off for the next one.

[lanwenyi]

DH is a teacher and we're in a year-round school district. Both times, our LOs were born at the beginning of the month off. With DD, it was 3.5 wks before he returned to work. With DS, it was 1 day shy of 3 wks. He did take several sick days his first month back to help me out, attend doctor visits, or make up for lost sleep.

DH was not eligible for FMLA (or in CA, CFRA) at DD's birth, b/c he and I worked for the same school district and we could only take 12 wks for both of us. We chose to have me stay home for the full 12 wks. With DS, since I had been laid-off, DH was eligible for FMLA/CFRA, but couldn't take it b/c he was our only income (and w/o a doc's off-work order, it is NOT paid leave).

If we'd been able to do it, DH prob would have taken some time off, but I doubt he would have taken the full 12 wks. I think it would be great, but it's so ingrained in our culture that men SHOULDN'T take time off, that he would have felt too guilty to stay home that long.