[tmar3809]

We are looking for other parents who adopted a newborn and were denied the right to take the same amount of accrued sick leave as birth mothers. This is research for drafting federal legislation prohibiting this discriminatory practice. Please email me at tmar3809@aol.com with your story and the name of your employer. There are a large number of companies who practice this and we need to know. Thanks.

[MrsSmith]

Hi,

I'm an amom and I just wanted to point out that however unfair it feels, the reason why adoptive parents are not allowed to use paid sick time or disability for adoption is because giving birth is a medical condition (procedure? hope you know what I mean) and adopting is not. I will say that at my employer at the time, I was allowed to use accrued PTO along with FMLA to take time off after our DD was born.

Cheers!
Heather

[tmar3809]

Heather:

I understand about the medical side....My wife is a physician....but the leave is for bonding and the baby, not be cause the mother has to recover.

[COMom]

We adopted our son when he was three weeks old. I was not covered for the time I took off because my body did not require time to heal. Sorry but that's what that short term disability is for when women give birth. It's not for bonding time - that's just a wonderful side benefit. Good luck with what you're trying to accomplish, though.

[taggrr2]

Tmar,

Federal FMLA laws address the bonding issues. I'm assuming you know that it is at company discretion to pay or not for the leave. These already existant federal laws already cover adoption.

Specific company maternity leaves do specify recovery or frame it in terms of short term disability. As much as it stinks, personally, my first, knee jerk, gut reaction is always that feds do not need to get any more involved.

I'd check out some previous threads on this topic. Sorry can't give you time frames.

[mckenna]

i know at my previous employer, you were allowed to use any and all of your accrued sick time when giving birth but not when adopting. my problem with that is that any time over 6 weeks (or 8 for c-section) should not have been allowed for birth or adoptive mother if the actual reason for allowing such time was recovery time. does that make sense?

[Scarlet]

We were allowed to use sick time fo 4 weeks for bonding time. If I had given birth I would have been able to take 6 weeks sick and then our Short Term Disibility would have kicked in. Because I had not under gone a medical poceedure I was not able to use Short Term, so I took the remaining 8 weeks of FMLA unpaid or used vacation. DH took off his 4 weeks paid. Because DH and I work for the same company we could only take 12 weeks combined, had we not we would have gotten 12 weeks each, kind of a rip off if you ask me but what could I do.
Really I don't think this is any different an issue than Fathers rights. I don't think they get any more time off paid than adoptive parents do.

Laura

[sugarbabysmommy]

How's about extending FMLA to persons who work fewer than 1250 hours in one year? Is the job stablity and income of a person employed fewer than 1250 hours less important, less valuable?!!! Yes, I understand there may need to be some standard, but millions of jobs, specifically non-white colar jobs are effected by this.

[parent2b]

I personally believe that maternity leave was classified incorrectly as short term disability. I think for healing purposes time off should be allowed for the pregnancy. I think it's about time our society decided whether or not we allow any paid maternal or paternal leave (Canada does!) and whether we as a society value that bonding time and wish that a portion of our taxes goes toward that. I'm not saying that I think parents should get a year of paid leave, I just think the issue has to be looked at completely and totally separately from medical leave. If the purpose of maternity leave is for medical reasons (ie:short term disability) then when a mother is "well" again, she should go back to work. I'm a proponent of a wholly separate law that pays for parental-child bonding time off. I don't know what the "right" length of time is, but I'd rather see legislation in that direction than trying to modify the short term disability laws which don't really apply to "bonding" time anyway. Just my 2 cents.

[79nic]

Well said, parent.

This issue frustrates me to no end, and it doesn't even really affect me, as a woman who gave birth. (Although the FMLA guidelines and my company's guidelines screwed me over last year, when I, working part-time, did not receive ANY paid time off after giving birth. I just got 6 weeks of unpaid maternity. That was a serious crunch to our budget...)

But I think it's ridiculous that we espouse "family values" in this country, and then deny adoptive parents leave to bond with their kids, deny fathers leave to bond with their kids, and deny foster parents leave to bond with their kids. It's horrible.

Further, on a somewhat different rate (but related the fact that Canada's looking better and better...), I just got home from the pediatrician today. I was informed that I owed additional money from our last trip there, in October. $71 more, to be exact. (Had already paid the $15 copay.) Why? Our insurance benefits from the year, for pediatrics, had capped out.

Now, let me tell you how often we took Elise to the pediatrician last year:

Her regular well-baby checkups, plus ONE extra visit for an ear infection.

In other words, our insurance did not even cover regular check-ups plus one sick visit. (And we all know how often kids get sick.)

I'm so angry I could spit.

WHY do I pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars for this insurance?????????

I am so disgusted at the entire health care system and family policies in the U.S.

[HappyMomAnna]

I really hope no one is offended but--I gave birth twice and adopted two more children.... When I gave birth 'I" was hurting--tired physically--breast feeding--and had c-sections so I needed to use my paid MEDICAL LEAVE for real medical issues.... When we took our adopted children home everyone was healthy and I was fit to do the things I have always done.... My husband took a FEW weeks of the 12 he was offered under the Family Leave Act which were unpaid.

So the question I have is this: A birthmother gives birth and takes her Paid Medical Leave--and the adoptive mother also does....? How long before women just are not hired anymore?

[numbr1dbcksfan]

I think this is all in the wording.... At my old job it was called "Personal Time off" And my present job it is "Sick time". I have to be sick to take it...or my daughter sick. OR lie. (which I am not good at.) My boss is really nice though...if it will take less than half the day..I can do whatever. Salaried so it doesnt really matter anyway.

So in this case....at my old job I would have been entitled to the time had I adopted...at this job, I would not be.

That is what I think the difference is...not the "gave birth" rather than " adopted"... some companies are just sticklers about the sick thing...

You should still be entitled to unpaid fmla...right?

Its about individual company benefits...not the government...IMO..

[DianeS]

I agree with parent2b. Recovering from giving birth is legally defined as a temporary disability, and employers pay employees from their temporary disability funds. Same with sick time - it is legally and corporately designated for when the employee is sick and needs to recover. While mothers *use* this time to bond, that isn't what either of those times are legally for.

Legally and under most corporate policies, adoptive parents are usually entitled to the same benefits that all fathers (birth or adoptive) currently get. In reality, all parents who did not give birth get the same benefits as other parents who did not give birth.

You'll probably get much further with "bonding time" legislation that is separate from "giving birth recovery time" legislation and from "sick time" legislation. Make it apply to all parents, regardless of their gender or how they became parents. Bonding time is necessary, regardless of how the child joined the family, or the age at which the child joined the family. Maybe model it after other countries that separate the two but have both. THAT would probably get a great deal of support.

Good luck!

[BethanyB]

I am a teacher, and at my school the teachers who give birth to have their children get to take six weeks of their sick days (if they have that, we get ten days a year to try and save). People who want to adopt do not get to take ANY of their sick days. The do say it's because bio parents have to recover. All of the friends that I have talked to who have given birth say it does not take that long to recover (unless you have a c section.) My one friend who is a single mom went back to work after a week because she needed the money.
So we know it's not taking six weeks to recovery from childbirth. I have had several major surgeries and have recovered faster than that. And people who pay for disibility insurance get MORE paid leave on top of that for their "recovery." And myself who pays the same amount to disibility insurance can not use that time. I just don't think it's right.

What bothers me is that they are our sick days to begin with. I could lie and call out saying I'm sick and go to the mall for all they know, so why not let me use my sick days to bond with a child? To me, it's just being stingy. They are not paying out any extra money to use for the leave. It's OUR sick time.
In the end it's just the personal choice of the person running the company.

I do think that there should be some type of bonding legislation. Then adoptive parents and fathers can take the same time to bond with their children as bio mothers can.

[HappyMomAnna]

But they are paying out extra money.... When you are not teaching a sub has to be paid.