are any of you not planning on having children?

[TravelingGal]

First of all, again, I totally agree - not sure how anyone could be defined as truly selfish for not wanting a child. If you don''t want a kid, you shouldn''t have one, period!

Date: 4/20/2009 2:24:45 PM
Author: gwendolyn

I don''t think it''s that simple. Some people aren''t financially stable into their later child-bearing years and feel it would be irresponsible to have a child if that means they''d have to live off welfare. Some people don''t care, but some do, and those who are on the fence may refrain from trying for kids if they aren''t totally committed to having them if it means they''d be literally in the poor house.

My situation is a combination of the above (lack of financial stability) and a concern over a medical condition (one that J doesn''t consider as serious as I do). We are just barely scraping by, and can''t even afford a cat for a couple of years, let alone a baby. We have so much coming up over the next few years that I can''t see far enough ahead to be able to imagine myself settled and ready to seriously consider having a baby. And, for the record, I am a teacher (and a pretty good one, to be honest). I love kids. My friends and family tell me I''m really good with them and that I''d make a great mom. I can''t give any solid reason for not wanting kids; I just don''t. Maybe that will change, but if it doesn''t, it''s not because I can''t stand children or because I''ll be wrapped up in designer threads and jet-setting around the world.

Gwen, I think what I am talking about is different from your situation. You''ve got lots of reasons for not wanting a kid, and I''m not sure if part of you is on the fence of not. My opinion is for those who have ALWAYS definitively, positively, emphatically stated they do not want children ever ever EVER. In my experience, the very few people I''ve known like this (and hence, again, it''s not a scientific study) have disliked children and have could not see anything enticing for them in parenthood.

 

[Blackpaw]

Vespergirl, Irishgrrrl and Nytemist, I have encountered this attitude before. In my professional career i have been criticised more than once by colleagues, who''ve said things like, ''when you''re older you wont be so selfish'' to me, or my favourite, ''what kind of woman doesnt like kids?''.

Its also come up when people have been debating maternity leave, australia''s ''baby bonus'' etc. I of course am on the not so popular side of the discussion, i believe in maternity leave of course, but i also think that if i choose not to have children, i should still be able to have my job held for me for a year so i can do whatever i find fulfilling. And as for the baby bonus, if you cant afford kids, dont have them. I would never have a child if i couldnt afford to support it. The government should give me $3000 towards travel if it wants to hand out money!

Im not against people having kids by any means, and will be excited for my friends when they start having families, but i dont feel my life choice is any less meaningful or valid than theirs....

 

[Shoopy]

Date: 4/21/2009 1:31:42 PM
Author: Blackpaw
Vespergirl, Irishgrrrl and Nytemist, I have encountered this attitude before. In my professional career i have been criticised more than once by colleagues, who''ve said things like, ''when you''re older you wont be so selfish'' to me, or my favourite, ''what kind of woman doesnt like kids?''.

Its also come up when people have been debating maternity leave, australia''s ''baby bonus'' etc. I of course am on the not so popular side of the discussion, i believe in maternity leave of course, but i also think that if i choose not to have children, i should still be able to have my job held for me for a year so i can do whatever i find fulfilling. And as for the baby bonus, if you cant afford kids, dont have them. I would never have a child if i couldnt afford to support it. The government should give me $3000 towards travel if it wants to hand out money!

Im not against people having kids by any means, and will be excited for my friends when they start having families, but i dont feel my life choice is any less meaningful or valid than theirs....

I find this slightly offensive...just slightly though

Taking maternity leave is not a vacation so that you can go do whatever you find fulfilling. It''s recovery time not only for yourself but also for your baby. I''m not sure what the terms are in Australia but in the states what we are really using for the first portion of the 12 week standard maternity leave is: short term disability (for up to 6 weeks) and then protected under the family medical leave act (for the remaining 6 weeks). The maternity leave is so that the mom can take care of the child not hang out.

Granted I''d love to treat my maternity leave as a vacation but my idea of taking 3 months off to do something great does not involve changing diapers and feeding at 3AM

.

The selfish argument is a dumb argument IMO. I think it would be more selfish to not want children at all but decide to have a child anyways because everyone else tells you that''s what you are supposed to do.

 

[Blackpaw]

dont be offended fiery

I agree with maternity leave for new mothers (and fathers for that matter), and i think in Aust its law to hold your job for 12months, and pay you maybe 12 weeks? though that part im not sure on.

My point is simply that i would love to have my job held for me for 12months so i can do something very important to me. I dont think that having a baby is more important or valid than someone else''s life choice, like learning something new or travelling or doing up their house or whatever.

Of course its very important for mum''s to be with their bubs, especially for those crucial early months.

The baby bonus is a 3000 payment for any aussie child born. If you were someone who plans not to have children, you will work and pay taxes your whole life and never benefit from that bonus, all because your life choice is not seen to be as valid, or worth as much, as someone who decides to have children.

And thanks for not thinking im selfish

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 4/21/2009 6:05:27 PM
Author: Blackpaw
dont be offended fiery

I agree with maternity leave for new mothers (and fathers for that matter), and i think in Aust its law to hold your job for 12months, and pay you maybe 12 weeks? though that part im not sure on.

My point is simply that i would love to have my job held for me for 12months so i can do something very important to me. I dont think that having a baby is more important or valid than someone else''s life choice, like learning something new or travelling or doing up their house or whatever.

Of course its very important for mum''s to be with their bubs, especially for those crucial early months.

The baby bonus is a 3000 payment for any aussie child born. If you were someone who plans not to have children, you will work and pay taxes your whole life and never benefit from that bonus, all because your life choice is not seen to be as valid, or worth as much, as someone who decides to have children.

And thanks for not thinking im selfish

Blackpaw, I agree 100%. I find it very interesting that society rewards those who choose to have children (with maternity leave, Australia''s "baby bonus," etc.), and yet the world''s population is growing much too quickly. Under the present circumstances, wouldn''t it make more sense to reward those who choose NOT to have children and those who choose to adopt instead of having a biological child?

And what about those adoptive parents? Do they get maternity leave as well? Do they get the "baby bonus" if they live in Australia? I firmly believe that adoptive parents should be entitled to just as many benefits as biological parents (if not even more).

 

[simplysplendid]

Date: 4/21/2009 6:39:56 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 4/21/2009 6:05:27 PM
Author: Blackpaw
dont be offended fiery

I agree with maternity leave for new mothers (and fathers for that matter), and i think in Aust its law to hold your job for 12months, and pay you maybe 12 weeks? though that part im not sure on.

My point is simply that i would love to have my job held for me for 12months so i can do something very important to me. I dont think that having a baby is more important or valid than someone else''s life choice, like learning something new or travelling or doing up their house or whatever.

Of course its very important for mum''s to be with their bubs, especially for those crucial early months.

The baby bonus is a 3000 payment for any aussie child born. If you were someone who plans not to have children, you will work and pay taxes your whole life and never benefit from that bonus, all because your life choice is not seen to be as valid, or worth as much, as someone who decides to have children.

And thanks for not thinking im selfish

Blackpaw, I agree 100%. I find it very interesting that society rewards those who choose to have children (with maternity leave, Australia''s ''baby bonus,'' etc.), and yet the world''s population is growing much too quickly. Under the present circumstances, wouldn''t it make more sense to reward those who choose NOT to have children and those who choose to adopt instead of having a biological child?

And what about those adoptive parents? Do they get maternity leave as well? Do they get the ''baby bonus'' if they live in Australia? I firmly believe that adoptive parents should be entitled to just as many benefits as biological parents (if not even more).

I understand that generally countries which have a "bonus" system to reward having children are countries which are not having enough new babies to replace the existing population i.e the population in those countries are aging far too quickly and of course that means a lot of other repercussions socially.

In Singapore, I get a SGD3000 cash gift for the first child, SGD6000 for the second child plus if I deposit SGD12000 into a education bank account, the government will match my SGD12000 (1 USD: 1.54 SGD). My tax liability has plumetted 80%. There''s more cash gift the more children you have and for some ladies, they don''t even have to pay taxes at all if the tax relief amount (calculated based on the number of children) is higher than the tax amount. We have 4 months maternity leave now. And yes, a lot of the tax benefits, non-biological parents enjoy them too (well, they don''t get the maternity leave). Of course the cash gift is not the reason to have a child but it helps a little with the financial part of having and raising a child. (SGD3000 doesn''t even fully cover the hospital stay, it''s not as if the bonus for the mothers to go shopping). Also, new mothers don''t sit at home enjoying herself during maternity. It is a period to rest the body, recover especially after a c-section, and also to deal with a new baby (and much more if its not the first or only baby). It is a very exhausting period and any less than 3 or 4 months just isn''t enough.

Parents who opts to adoption, on the other hand, faces a lot of bureaucratic, administrative procedures. Honestly, some parents don''t go and adopt just any orphan child who is in need of a loving home. They look through the history, the colour, the gender and yes, they are effectively choosing their baby. So perhaps other than the administration process, some parents find it hard to adopt because they can''t find the right baby. Some parents may not adopt babies that are sick or has genetic problems. When you have your own, you don''t and you can''t really choose (unless there are problems picked up during the pre-natal phase and the parents choose to terminate the pregnancy). So I don''t think we are comparing apples to apples when we are comparing having your own baby vs adopting one.

 

[zhuzhu]

In a way the "benefits" new mothers get in several societies almost demonstrate that society is treating pregnancy and giving birth as some kind of "disability". Society should take care of the "weak" (young, disable..etc) but should pregnancy be considered as "weakness"? I am not sure.

Those of us who do not have children are paying heavy tax on school system even though we do not ever get to use it. So yes, in general societies definitely play favoritism on the "traditional family structure" - the ones with kids in them.

 

[plethora23]

When you are a mother, there will be days that you will wake up resenting your husband and child, especially on difficult days, and it is perfectly normal and human. And when you do, it is time for a little break, a little time for yourself before your reconnect with your husband and child and you will find yourself loving them much much more. Unfortunately, you are right that there is no trial period for having a baby. You can only get yourself ready in terms of getting yourself in the right state of health physically, emotionally and financially. As for parenthood, you pretty much plunge into it and I believe in most cases, people do enjoy it.



Simplysplendid- I''m so glad you said this. I completely agree. It isn''t often talked about but it''s the absolute truth!

 

[simplysplendid]

Date: 4/21/2009 10:54:40 PM
Author: zhuzhu
In a way the ''benefits'' new mothers get in several societies almost demonstrate that society is treating pregnancy and giving birth as some kind of ''disability''. Society should take care of the ''weak'' (young, disable..etc) but should pregnancy be considered as ''weakness''? I am not sure.

Those of us who do not have children are paying heavy tax on school system even though we do not ever get to use it. So yes, in general societies definitely play favoritism on the ''traditional family structure'' - the ones with kids in them.

It will be sad if society were to view pregnancy and its product as a disability. Perhaps then we all shouldn''t be here.

The "benefits" are not similar to welfare benefits. They are incentives for people to have children. It is precisely because more and more young couples are choosing not to have children for the various reasons (lack of time, finance, assistance etc. to have and raise a child in the best possible way etc.) that governments are putting in these incentives for people to have children. I believe these incentives are not in place in third world or developing nations where education and pursuit of personal goals have not impacted the birthrate. Governments putting these incentives in place are generally governments of developed nations which have low birth rates which have a high focus on personal goals. They need new people to replace the aging and dying population - in the workforce, the military etc. to contribute to the society in the next generation. The maternity leave, is for new mothers to recover because child birth is pretty traumatic to the human body.

Perhaps we can think of it this way -- Your mom for example, had you and had enjoyed certain maternity benefits and taxpayers certainly paid for her maternity to some extent. She raised you in the best posssible way - fed, clothed, educated you and now you are doing your part and contributing to the society in some way (including paying taxes) and yes, the taxes you pay (if you are working) are going back into the cycle.

 

[Pandora II]

In the UK we are entitled to a year''s maternity leave - plus Statutory Maternity Pay, which is first 6 weeks paid at 90% of your salary and then up to week 39 at £125 a week. The final 13 weeks are unpaid.

Your employer has to hold your job and pay any additional contractual benefits such as holidays, employer pension contributions etc

Many employers have enhanced packages - mine has 13 weeks full pay followed by 13 weeks half pay and then SMP.

I also qualified for the new £190 government payout for all mothers due on after April 6th and all babies get £250 paid into a Government Trust Fund at birth.

Our benefits are good but don''t begin to compare with many other European countries.

If you adopt or if your child is still-born after 24 weeks then you also qualify for the full years maternity leave (unless you are adopting your partner''s child).

RE: Adoption - it''s all very well people talking about adoption like it''s picking out a cat at the local shelter. I for one would not be allowed to adopt because I have bipolar disorder - despite it being very well controlled - and that includes adopting from places like China not just within the UK.

Domestic adoption is extremely difficult - social services are very reluctant to place children with families that are not of the same ethnic origin. Many of the children available for adoption are older, have siblings, have behavioural disorders or major disabilities. Where I live in London, we have a lot of black children on the adoption list, but very few black families wanting to adopt and the children will not be allocated to white families.

Abortion legislation has meant that there aren''t that many ''normal'' babies out there. Fertility treatments have meant that many people find that they are judged too ''old'' by the time they start to look at adoption. If you are obese, have any major health issues etc you will also be turned down.


I don''t think it''s selfish to not have children - the only thing I consider selfish where kids are concerned are people who have loads of them when they can''t afford to look after them. My husband and I had to do careful calculations before we made the decision to breed - and yet I fork out for the loser down the road who has 8 kids by 7 diffferent men and has never worked a day in her life.

In the UK we have a big problem with an aging population and so the government would like to incentivise ''productive'' member of society to procreate. In a country where it''s almost impossible to buy a house without two incomes that means financial help.

As to whether people who choose not to have children should been given the same money for a project of their own... well, I don''t drive a car, so perhaps I could opt out of road taxation, my parents paid for my education so perhaps they should get a rebate on the tax portion that goes towards paying for public education... where do you draw the line?

 

[nytemist]

Oh I could go off the deep end about the benefits given to people who have kids... can''t go there. I will make folks mad. How fitting this topic comes up since I had a co-worker just try last week to volunteer me to cover for her. Did she ask? No. She just assumed it would be fine since ''I don''t have kids, she has the time to do this for me''. Sure, like there is NOTHING ELSE going on in life that I may want to do with my time. Grrrrr.

Long story short, both people in the relationship need clear-as-a-bell view on the children aspect. There is no do-over. Sure there are plenty of people on the fence, but make it real clear that you could potentially come down on the side of the fence that the other may not like. Childfree people just know that parenting is not for him (and I''m not trying to push that view) and no amount of snide remarks will change their mind. Other people know no matter what they want to be a parent. Same deal, you won''t change their mind.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

I know I''m late on this issue, but I don''t understand why being too selfish to have children is a bad thing? I readily admit that I am way too selfish to want to have kids right now. I am enjoying my life and freedom and spending time with my husband. Having children is essentially a decision to no longer put yourself first. I''m not ready to do that. If anybody were to accuse me of being too selfish to have children I wouldn''t blink while saying "You''re absolutely right".

 

[rhbgirl24]

Date: 4/22/2009 9:25:25 AM
Author: NewEnglandLady
I know I''m late on this issue, but I don''t understand why being too selfish to have children is a bad thing? I readily admit that I am way too selfish to want to have kids right now. I am enjoying my life and freedom and spending time with my husband. Having children is essentially a decision to no longer put yourself first. I''m not ready to do that. If anybody were to accuse me of being too selfish to have children I wouldn''t blink while saying ''You''re absolutely right''.

I absolutely agree with the above. I know at this point in my life, 28, that I am too self centered for children. There are too many things I still want to do with my fiance that I don''t have time for to add other people''s wants and needs into the mix.

Now, do I never want to have children? I really have no idea..... I love kids, but I love giving them back even more. I always imagined myself with children, then a grew up and figured out how hard it is.

My fiance doesn''t want children, but is PHENOMENAL with them. Go figure. So only time will tell, I guess.

 

[zhuzhu]

My DH is the same way, he will make the bestest father in the world! What a shame that he does not have the desire to be one.....

 

[got2goldens]

Date: 4/21/2009 6:39:56 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 4/21/2009 6:05:27 PM
Author: Blackpaw
dont be offended fiery

I agree with maternity leave for new mothers (and fathers for that matter), and i think in Aust its law to hold your job for 12months, and pay you maybe 12 weeks? though that part im not sure on.

My point is simply that i would love to have my job held for me for 12months so i can do something very important to me. I dont think that having a baby is more important or valid than someone else's life choice, like learning something new or travelling or doing up their house or whatever.

Of course its very important for mum's to be with their bubs, especially for those crucial early months.

The baby bonus is a 3000 payment for any aussie child born. If you were someone who plans not to have children, you will work and pay taxes your whole life and never benefit from that bonus, all because your life choice is not seen to be as valid, or worth as much, as someone who decides to have children.

And thanks for not thinking im selfish

Blackpaw, I agree 100%. I find it very interesting that society rewards those who choose to have children (with maternity leave, Australia's 'baby bonus,' etc.), and yet the world's population is growing much too quickly. Under the present circumstances, wouldn't it make more sense to reward those who choose NOT to have children and those who choose to adopt instead of having a biological child?

And what about those adoptive parents? Do they get maternity leave as well? Do they get the 'baby bonus' if they live in Australia? I firmly believe that adoptive parents should be entitled to just as many benefits as biological parents (if not even more).

Irishgrrl,
I can answer this as someone in the US who adopted a child, but this is my individual situation...
At the time we adopted our daughter (internationlly), I worked for a small company with about 30 employees. I was allowed to accumulate 3 weeks of vacation so I could spend time with her when we brought her home, so not really a "paid maternity leave," but thank goodness my boss let me take the time and get paid as well.
It is my understanding that if a company has 50 or more employees, the Family Medical Leave Act kicks in, where your job may be held for you for 6 weeks but pay is not mandatory, it's at the discretion of the employer. Someone can correct me if i am wrong, but I remember researching this so I would have something to go on had my boss not been as understanding as he was.
Also, there is a $10,000 adoption federal tax credit for international/domestic adoptions, that can be claimed for up to 5 consecutive years after the adoption is completed. Last I remember, that tax credit was going to "sunset" in 2010 if legislation was not approved for it to continue. Also, some states have tax credits as well...Missouri does, but that's the only one I know for sure.
This was probably more than you wanted to know, but maybe it will help someone...

~Kat

 

[jstarfireb]

RE: selfishness...I think there''s a difference between saying one is too selfish to have children vs. saying that choosing not to have children is an inherently selfish act. Like NEL, I readily admit that I''m too selfish for children. Anyone who''s not willing to give up a huge part of their life to care for a child is by my definition too selfish for children. That''s not a criticism of anyone including myself, just an observation. But to say that the act of deciding not to have children in general is a selfish act is too much of a generalization. So when people say "how can you be so selfish" not to have children, I do get offended, because they''re making a sweeping assumption that deciding not to bring a child into the world is always a selfish act. It''s of course far more complicated than that.

 

[TravelingGal]

OK, let''s see if I can put this in the correct thread this time...

I seriously DO NOT GET why ANYONE would care one way or another if someone else doesn''t have kids. (I exclude potential grandparents from this. ) I could not imagine telling anyone their life isn''t complete without kids. When I wasn''t a mom, I always jokingly thought "misery must want company." I no longer think this is the case, but geez...I can''t believe what some of you hear in your day to day lives!

Not having kids can give you a most enjoyable life, especially if you are the type who has a lot of things you want to do! And your body stays younger and fresher to help you to do those things!!

 

[Logan Sapphire]

Date: 4/22/2009 4:50:18 PM
Author: got2goldens


I can answer this as someone in the US who adopted a child, but this is my individual situation...

At the time we adopted our daughter (internationlly), I worked for a small company with about 30 employees. I was allowed to accumulate 3 weeks of vacation so I could spend time with her when we brought her home, so not really a ''paid maternity leave,'' but thank goodness my boss let me take the time and get paid as well.

It is my understanding that if a company has 50 or more employees, the Family Medical Leave Act kicks in, where your job may be held for you for 6 weeks but pay is not mandatory, it''s at the discretion of the employer. Someone can correct me if i am wrong, but I remember researching this so I would have something to go on had my boss not been as understanding as he was.

Also, there is a $10,000 adoption federal tax credit for international/domestic adoptions, that can be claimed for up to 5 consecutive years after the adoption is completed. Last I remember, that tax credit was going to ''sunset'' in 2010 if legislation was not approved for it to continue. Also, some states have tax credits as well...Missouri does, but that''s the only one I know for sure.

This was probably more than you wanted to know, but maybe it will help someone...


~Kat

We''ve also adopted internationally! I think FMLA allows you to have unpaid leave but(at least for my situation- I work for the federal govt) you can also use any combination of leave you''ve accumulated, including leave without pay or advanced leave. We''re sooo looking forward to that adoption credit, but in our case, our adoption won''t be finalized until a year later, so we will have to wait until 2011 to claim that credit.

As for making sure you iron out kids-no kids prior to marriage...when I got married, I thought I wanted kids. I didn''t know when, but figured it would be in the near future. After marriage, I pretty much changed my mind and decided I didn''t want kids. My husband was very patient and understanding and said he could go either way. And now we have a baby. So, I don''t think knowing anything before you''re married means you''ll feel the same way after marriage. And it''s crazy that people think that it''s selfish to not have kids. Sheesh!

 

[zhuzhu]

What is the definition of "selfishness"?

What was the reason for parents to want to have offspring? Was it because they wanted to create another human being? Was it because they wanted to feel needed by another life? Was it because they love each other and wanted to "mark" that fact in the society? Or was it simply because they just want to leave evidence on earth (passing of DNA) that they have indeed lived here once?

If it was one of the reasons above, I think it is just as easy to call the wants/needs of having children a selfishness-driven thought, no?

My point,is that it is silly to call one decision over another as "selfish" or "bad". Sure, in societies where increasing population is beneficial, government should do their best to encourage birth. I personally think China should give financial benefits for parents to keep their baby girls (or allow them to give 2nd birth (hopefully a boy) without the usual penalty). But that is a different story and population-based intervention all together.

 

[Maisie]

I can''t remember what life was like before I had children. My eldest is 19. I was 18 when I had him. I have had no opportunity to have a life just for me. I have also found out (after child number 5) that I carry a genetic condition. I will be 55 by the time my youngest is 21. My whole life would have been taken up with taking care of kids.

Do I regret having them? Never! Its not possible to feel that way about human beings who are here and alive.

Would I think twice if I had my time over? You bet I would. I have had major depression problems and if you take into account the genetic condition I would probably have been better off not having children.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 4/22/2009 2:40:41 AM
Author: simplysplendid
It is precisely because more and more young couples are choosing not to have children for the various reasons (lack of time, finance, assistance etc. to have and raise a child in the best possible way etc.) that governments are putting in these incentives for people to have children.

Only somewhat related but I read an article recently about how right now in China there is 20 males for every 1 female, and that as of right now something like 45% of females have no desire to get married or have children. That migggghhht be a problem in the future!

 

[musey]

Date: 4/22/2009 6:20:50 PM
Author: TravelingGal
OK, let's see if I can put this in the correct thread this time...

I seriously DO NOT GET why ANYONE would care one way or another if someone else doesn't have kids. (I exclude potential grandparents from this. ) I could not imagine telling anyone their life isn't complete without kids. When I wasn't a mom, I always jokingly thought 'misery must want company.' I no longer think this is the case, but geez...I can't believe what some of you hear in your day to day lives!


Not having kids can give you a most enjoyable life, especially if you are the type who has a lot of things you want to do! And your body stays younger and fresher to help you to do those things!!

DITTO.

(no surprise there.)

I have heard none of this, but maybe it's due to my region and/or my age. We definitely want kids (WAY in the future, as we are quite young and unestablished), but whenever someone asks, we say we don't - because we're more likely to get the "WHY"s to wanting kids than to not, from our social circle. It's easier to tell people what they want to hear, rather than invite a meaningless debate (we have made and are confident in our choice) - I personally have found no value for honesty in this area

(except with family and very close friends, who always get the truth).

 

[got2goldens]

Date: 4/22/2009 6:30:51 PM
Author: Logan Sapphire

Date: 4/22/2009 4:50:18 PM
Author: got2goldens


I can answer this as someone in the US who adopted a child, but this is my individual situation...

At the time we adopted our daughter (internationlly), I worked for a small company with about 30 employees. I was allowed to accumulate 3 weeks of vacation so I could spend time with her when we brought her home, so not really a ''paid maternity leave,'' but thank goodness my boss let me take the time and get paid as well.

It is my understanding that if a company has 50 or more employees, the Family Medical Leave Act kicks in, where your job may be held for you for 6 weeks but pay is not mandatory, it''s at the discretion of the employer. Someone can correct me if i am wrong, but I remember researching this so I would have something to go on had my boss not been as understanding as he was.

Also, there is a $10,000 adoption federal tax credit for international/domestic adoptions, that can be claimed for up to 5 consecutive years after the adoption is completed. Last I remember, that tax credit was going to ''sunset'' in 2010 if legislation was not approved for it to continue. Also, some states have tax credits as well...Missouri does, but that''s the only one I know for sure.

This was probably more than you wanted to know, but maybe it will help someone...


~Kat

We''ve also adopted internationally! I think FMLA allows you to have unpaid leave but(at least for my situation- I work for the federal govt) you can also use any combination of leave you''ve accumulated, including leave without pay or advanced leave. We''re sooo looking forward to that adoption credit, but in our case, our adoption won''t be finalized until a year later, so we will have to wait until 2011 to claim that credit.

As for making sure you iron out kids-no kids prior to marriage...when I got married, I thought I wanted kids. I didn''t know when, but figured it would be in the near future. After marriage, I pretty much changed my mind and decided I didn''t want kids. My husband was very patient and understanding and said he could go either way. And now we have a baby. So, I don''t think knowing anything before you''re married means you''ll feel the same way after marriage. And it''s crazy that people think that it''s selfish to not have kids. Sheesh!

Hi LoganSapphire,
I have to admit, the adoption credit was nice. You know how much can be invested in this type of venture!

Regarding kids...I didn''t think I would want kids when we first got married...we just wanted to spend some time enjoying being married. We had discussed the possibility, but neither one of us were very gung-ho about it.

Now, I would never ask someone if they wanted or planned on having kids, and I would never assume that everyone should want them. I know what it felt like for the first several years of our marriage when every co-worker of mine asked me incessantly why we didn''t have kids, and why weren''t we having them? My standard answer was, "how is my answer possibly going to impact your life?" Usually they backed off after that.

What changed my mind and "flipped the switch" on motherhood for me was when my sister had a baby. DH and I researched international adoption, and we had discussed this as a possibility if we ever decided to be parents (and yes, the co-workers were thrilled. I even asked them not to have a shower for me but they did it anyway!)

But to this day, when we meet couples that don''t have any children, neither one of us would ever ask if they are planning on having kids because we''ve been in their shoes and know it''s none of our business. To each his own...and I know a couple that don''t have kids and they travel, have a gorgeous home and have their retirement home paid for, like 20 years early! More power to them

Bottom line: make sure you and your FI are basically on the same page about this before you walk down the aisle. Obviously this topic can be a deal-breaker...

~Kat

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 4/22/2009 4:50:18 PM
Author: got2goldens

Date: 4/21/2009 6:39:56 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 4/21/2009 6:05:27 PM
Author: Blackpaw
dont be offended fiery

I agree with maternity leave for new mothers (and fathers for that matter), and i think in Aust its law to hold your job for 12months, and pay you maybe 12 weeks? though that part im not sure on.

My point is simply that i would love to have my job held for me for 12months so i can do something very important to me. I dont think that having a baby is more important or valid than someone else''s life choice, like learning something new or travelling or doing up their house or whatever.

Of course its very important for mum''s to be with their bubs, especially for those crucial early months.

The baby bonus is a 3000 payment for any aussie child born. If you were someone who plans not to have children, you will work and pay taxes your whole life and never benefit from that bonus, all because your life choice is not seen to be as valid, or worth as much, as someone who decides to have children.

And thanks for not thinking im selfish

Blackpaw, I agree 100%. I find it very interesting that society rewards those who choose to have children (with maternity leave, Australia''s ''baby bonus,'' etc.), and yet the world''s population is growing much too quickly. Under the present circumstances, wouldn''t it make more sense to reward those who choose NOT to have children and those who choose to adopt instead of having a biological child?

And what about those adoptive parents? Do they get maternity leave as well? Do they get the ''baby bonus'' if they live in Australia? I firmly believe that adoptive parents should be entitled to just as many benefits as biological parents (if not even more).

Irishgrrl,
I can answer this as someone in the US who adopted a child, but this is my individual situation...
At the time we adopted our daughter (internationlly), I worked for a small company with about 30 employees. I was allowed to accumulate 3 weeks of vacation so I could spend time with her when we brought her home, so not really a ''paid maternity leave,'' but thank goodness my boss let me take the time and get paid as well.
It is my understanding that if a company has 50 or more employees, the Family Medical Leave Act kicks in, where your job may be held for you for 6 weeks but pay is not mandatory, it''s at the discretion of the employer. Someone can correct me if i am wrong, but I remember researching this so I would have something to go on had my boss not been as understanding as he was.
Also, there is a $10,000 adoption federal tax credit for international/domestic adoptions, that can be claimed for up to 5 consecutive years after the adoption is completed. Last I remember, that tax credit was going to ''sunset'' in 2010 if legislation was not approved for it to continue. Also, some states have tax credits as well...Missouri does, but that''s the only one I know for sure.
This was probably more than you wanted to know, but maybe it will help someone...

~Kat

Kat, thank you for this response!

I actually work for a small law firm (only 10 employees), so I would be in a similar situation if I ever DID decide to have/adopt a child. I have always wondered what kind of benefits adoptive parents receive as compared to those that biological parents receive. It seems very unfair to me that there is such a disparity between the two! As I said before, I believe that, if we are going to extend benefits of ANY kind (maternity/paternity leave, tax credits, etc.) to parents, then both biological and adoptive parents should be entitled to EXACTLY the same benefits. From your post, it seems that you were NOT eligible for maternity leave, as you would have been if you were having a biological child. Did I get that right? If so, then I think that''s very unfair.

 

[simplysplendid]

Date: 4/23/2009 9:57:30 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 4/22/2009 4:50:18 PM
Author: got2goldens

Date: 4/21/2009 6:39:56 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 4/21/2009 6:05:27 PM
Author: Blackpaw
dont be offended fiery

I agree with maternity leave for new mothers (and fathers for that matter), and i think in Aust its law to hold your job for 12months, and pay you maybe 12 weeks? though that part im not sure on.

My point is simply that i would love to have my job held for me for 12months so i can do something very important to me. I dont think that having a baby is more important or valid than someone else''s life choice, like learning something new or travelling or doing up their house or whatever.

Of course its very important for mum''s to be with their bubs, especially for those crucial early months.

The baby bonus is a 3000 payment for any aussie child born. If you were someone who plans not to have children, you will work and pay taxes your whole life and never benefit from that bonus, all because your life choice is not seen to be as valid, or worth as much, as someone who decides to have children.

And thanks for not thinking im selfish

Blackpaw, I agree 100%. I find it very interesting that society rewards those who choose to have children (with maternity leave, Australia''s ''baby bonus,'' etc.), and yet the world''s population is growing much too quickly. Under the present circumstances, wouldn''t it make more sense to reward those who choose NOT to have children and those who choose to adopt instead of having a biological child?

And what about those adoptive parents? Do they get maternity leave as well? Do they get the ''baby bonus'' if they live in Australia? I firmly believe that adoptive parents should be entitled to just as many benefits as biological parents (if not even more).

Irishgrrl,
I can answer this as someone in the US who adopted a child, but this is my individual situation...
At the time we adopted our daughter (internationlly), I worked for a small company with about 30 employees. I was allowed to accumulate 3 weeks of vacation so I could spend time with her when we brought her home, so not really a ''paid maternity leave,'' but thank goodness my boss let me take the time and get paid as well.
It is my understanding that if a company has 50 or more employees, the Family Medical Leave Act kicks in, where your job may be held for you for 6 weeks but pay is not mandatory, it''s at the discretion of the employer. Someone can correct me if i am wrong, but I remember researching this so I would have something to go on had my boss not been as understanding as he was.
Also, there is a $10,000 adoption federal tax credit for international/domestic adoptions, that can be claimed for up to 5 consecutive years after the adoption is completed. Last I remember, that tax credit was going to ''sunset'' in 2010 if legislation was not approved for it to continue. Also, some states have tax credits as well...Missouri does, but that''s the only one I know for sure.
This was probably more than you wanted to know, but maybe it will help someone...

~Kat

Kat, thank you for this response!

I actually work for a small law firm (only 10 employees), so I would be in a similar situation if I ever DID decide to have/adopt a child. I have always wondered what kind of benefits adoptive parents receive as compared to those that biological parents receive. It seems very unfair to me that there is such a disparity between the two! As I said before, I believe that, if we are going to extend benefits of ANY kind (maternity/paternity leave, tax credits, etc.) to parents, then both biological and adoptive parents should be entitled to EXACTLY the same benefits. From your post, it seems that you were NOT eligible for maternity leave, as you would have been if you were having a biological child. Did I get that right? If so, then I think that''s very unfair.

If someone is adopting a newborn baby, I can understand why some kind of leave will be necessary for the adopting parent. The maternity leave is meant for the mother to heal and look after a new born, it is not a holiday. If an adopting parent is adopting any other child other than a newborn, I cannot see how maternity leave is justified for the adopting parent. Who should take the maternity leave for the adopting parent in a case where the mother did not actually go through the physical trauma to deliver the baby? - the mother or the father or both?

 

[Lauren8211]

FMLA applies to adoptive parents as well. It''s just your company has to have 50 or more employees to be required to provide FMLA benefits.

 

[got2goldens]

Date: 4/23/2009 9:57:30 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 4/22/2009 4:50:18 PM
Author: got2goldens

Date: 4/21/2009 6:39:56 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 4/21/2009 6:05:27 PM
Author: Blackpaw
dont be offended fiery

I agree with maternity leave for new mothers (and fathers for that matter), and i think in Aust its law to hold your job for 12months, and pay you maybe 12 weeks? though that part im not sure on.

My point is simply that i would love to have my job held for me for 12months so i can do something very important to me. I dont think that having a baby is more important or valid than someone else''s life choice, like learning something new or travelling or doing up their house or whatever.

Of course its very important for mum''s to be with their bubs, especially for those crucial early months.

The baby bonus is a 3000 payment for any aussie child born. If you were someone who plans not to have children, you will work and pay taxes your whole life and never benefit from that bonus, all because your life choice is not seen to be as valid, or worth as much, as someone who decides to have children.

And thanks for not thinking im selfish

Blackpaw, I agree 100%. I find it very interesting that society rewards those who choose to have children (with maternity leave, Australia''s ''baby bonus,'' etc.), and yet the world''s population is growing much too quickly. Under the present circumstances, wouldn''t it make more sense to reward those who choose NOT to have children and those who choose to adopt instead of having a biological child?

And what about those adoptive parents? Do they get maternity leave as well? Do they get the ''baby bonus'' if they live in Australia? I firmly believe that adoptive parents should be entitled to just as many benefits as biological parents (if not even more).

Irishgrrl,
I can answer this as someone in the US who adopted a child, but this is my individual situation...
At the time we adopted our daughter (internationlly), I worked for a small company with about 30 employees. I was allowed to accumulate 3 weeks of vacation so I could spend time with her when we brought her home, so not really a ''paid maternity leave,'' but thank goodness my boss let me take the time and get paid as well.
It is my understanding that if a company has 50 or more employees, the Family Medical Leave Act kicks in, where your job may be held for you for 6 weeks but pay is not mandatory, it''s at the discretion of the employer. Someone can correct me if i am wrong, but I remember researching this so I would have something to go on had my boss not been as understanding as he was.
Also, there is a $10,000 adoption federal tax credit for international/domestic adoptions, that can be claimed for up to 5 consecutive years after the adoption is completed. Last I remember, that tax credit was going to ''sunset'' in 2010 if legislation was not approved for it to continue. Also, some states have tax credits as well...Missouri does, but that''s the only one I know for sure.
This was probably more than you wanted to know, but maybe it will help someone...

~Kat

Kat, thank you for this response!

I actually work for a small law firm (only 10 employees), so I would be in a similar situation if I ever DID decide to have/adopt a child. I have always wondered what kind of benefits adoptive parents receive as compared to those that biological parents receive. It seems very unfair to me that there is such a disparity between the two! As I said before, I believe that, if we are going to extend benefits of ANY kind (maternity/paternity leave, tax credits, etc.) to parents, then both biological and adoptive parents should be entitled to EXACTLY the same benefits. From your post, it seems that you were NOT eligible for maternity leave, as you would have been if you were having a biological child. Did I get that right? If so, then I think that''s very unfair.

Emm,
I think my situation was a little different in that, as Elledizzy pointed out in the previous post, a company has to have more than 50 employees for FMLA to kick in...but even if they do hold your job for 6 weeks with FMLA, it''s up to the company as to whether or not they will pay you for your time out.
At the time I did this, my company had about 30 employees, so I was holding out hope that my boss would let me take a little paid time off to bond with our little girl. Thankfully, he did let me take the 3 weeks off that I had accumulated in vacation time...
The paid leave situation may be different when a company has more than 50 employees, but it sounds like you would be in the same situation as I was, with 10 employees in your law firm.
And I do agree with you, adoptive parents should have the same benefits as biological parents. As far as leave time, I needed at LEAST that much time to bond with our daughter.

~Kat

 

[got2goldens]

Date: 4/23/2009 10:07:27 AM
Author: simplysplendid

Date: 4/23/2009 9:57:30 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 4/22/2009 4:50:18 PM
Author: got2goldens

Date: 4/21/2009 6:39:56 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 4/21/2009 6:05:27 PM
Author: Blackpaw
dont be offended fiery

I agree with maternity leave for new mothers (and fathers for that matter), and i think in Aust its law to hold your job for 12months, and pay you maybe 12 weeks? though that part im not sure on.

My point is simply that i would love to have my job held for me for 12months so i can do something very important to me. I dont think that having a baby is more important or valid than someone else's life choice, like learning something new or travelling or doing up their house or whatever.

Of course its very important for mum's to be with their bubs, especially for those crucial early months.

The baby bonus is a 3000 payment for any aussie child born. If you were someone who plans not to have children, you will work and pay taxes your whole life and never benefit from that bonus, all because your life choice is not seen to be as valid, or worth as much, as someone who decides to have children.

And thanks for not thinking im selfish

Blackpaw, I agree 100%. I find it very interesting that society rewards those who choose to have children (with maternity leave, Australia's 'baby bonus,' etc.), and yet the world's population is growing much too quickly. Under the present circumstances, wouldn't it make more sense to reward those who choose NOT to have children and those who choose to adopt instead of having a biological child?

And what about those adoptive parents? Do they get maternity leave as well? Do they get the 'baby bonus' if they live in Australia? I firmly believe that adoptive parents should be entitled to just as many benefits as biological parents (if not even more).

Irishgrrl,
I can answer this as someone in the US who adopted a child, but this is my individual situation...
At the time we adopted our daughter (internationlly), I worked for a small company with about 30 employees. I was allowed to accumulate 3 weeks of vacation so I could spend time with her when we brought her home, so not really a 'paid maternity leave,' but thank goodness my boss let me take the time and get paid as well.
It is my understanding that if a company has 50 or more employees, the Family Medical Leave Act kicks in, where your job may be held for you for 6 weeks but pay is not mandatory, it's at the discretion of the employer. Someone can correct me if i am wrong, but I remember researching this so I would have something to go on had my boss not been as understanding as he was.
Also, there is a $10,000 adoption federal tax credit for international/domestic adoptions, that can be claimed for up to 5 consecutive years after the adoption is completed. Last I remember, that tax credit was going to 'sunset' in 2010 if legislation was not approved for it to continue. Also, some states have tax credits as well...Missouri does, but that's the only one I know for sure.
This was probably more than you wanted to know, but maybe it will help someone...

~Kat

Kat, thank you for this response!

I actually work for a small law firm (only 10 employees), so I would be in a similar situation if I ever DID decide to have/adopt a child. I have always wondered what kind of benefits adoptive parents receive as compared to those that biological parents receive. It seems very unfair to me that there is such a disparity between the two! As I said before, I believe that, if we are going to extend benefits of ANY kind (maternity/paternity leave, tax credits, etc.) to parents, then both biological and adoptive parents should be entitled to EXACTLY the same benefits. From your post, it seems that you were NOT eligible for maternity leave, as you would have been if you were having a biological child. Did I get that right? If so, then I think that's very unfair.

If someone is adopting a newborn baby, I can understand why some kind of leave will be necessary for the adopting parent. The maternity leave is meant for the mother to heal and look after a new born, it is not a holiday. If an adopting parent is adopting any other child other than a newborn, I cannot see how maternity leave is justified for the adopting parent. Who should take the maternity leave for the adopting parent in a case where the mother did not actually go through the physical trauma to deliver the baby? - the mother or the father or both?

SimplySplendid,
I see your point, but I needed time off to bond with our little girl. I can't imagine just bringing home a new baby and throwing them into daycare/babysitting right away and going back to work...I defintely needed the little time I had to bond with her, establish a little bit of a routine, etc.
And DH took 2 days off after we got home with her, just so she could get to know him a little bit, without him being gone for work all day long.

~Kat

 

[Lauren8211]

Both parents are eligible for leave for a child for up to 12 weeks, whether it is a biological, adopted, or fostered child.

I don''t know why it would matter if someone physically gave birth or not, it''s still a new baby in the home, and they''re entitled to their time with their new baby. Men don''t give birth, and they''re entitled, so the same rules would apply to those who adopt.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

Date: 4/23/2009 11:02:46 AM
Author: elledizzy5
Both parents are eligible for leave for a child for up to 12 weeks, whether it is a biological, adopted, or fostered child.


I don't know why it would matter if someone physically gave birth or not, it's still a new baby in the home, and they're entitled to their time with their new baby. Men don't give birth, and they're entitled, so the same rules would apply to those who adopt.

Exactly!!!! Bonding and attachment are such important aspects of becoming a new family, and adoption experts have written a ton on how to bond and the dangers of not bonding. In fact, our agency mandates that one parent take off at least 6 weeks from work to care for their child.

In our case, our daughter went from spending almost 11 months with her foster mom (to whom she became very attached) to a new life with us, literally overnight. In the two visits and one overnight we had with her prior to our flight home, she screamed the entire time. Bloodcurdling screams too. She hated us and literally attempted to leap into her foster mom's arms. She screamed non-stop the entire 14 hour flight back too. So I think it would've been a terrible and probably very damaging thing to immediately go back to work and put her in daycare, don't you think??

And to answer Simply Splendid's question, both my husband and I are each taking off 3 months to stay with her.

In the federal govt, we found that adoption and bio children aren't treated quite the same. I could not use my sick leave for "bonding" or "caring" for my healthy adopted child, according to the Office of Personnel Management. http://www.opm.gov/oca/leave/HTML/adoptionfs.asp. I totally think that's wrong, and fortunately, neither my employer nor my husband's employer enforces that.