Autumn

2015

Most Of The Time...

our editor, Claire Paye, on what being a mother at home means to her.

have a confession to make.

I sometimes wonder whether
being at home full time has
made a significant difference
to my childrens lives. My
working mother friends children seem
equally happy and well-adjusted. Does
it matter to children if they are cared for
by their mothers all the time, or whether
some of the time they are in childcare
settings?

My inner debate is helped by the Bob

Dylan song, Most of the Time, in which
he reflects on a broken relationship and
reasons that I dont even think about
her, most of the time. The implication
is that hes not always ok, and that those
times are very painful. I think the same
applies in parenting. Most children,
most of the time, get on ok at nursery
and in childcare, usually if they are only
away from their parents for a few hours a
week. Most families manage to make the
compromises to live the way that suits
them the best. But not all.
Some families, most of the time, are
struggling. Most babies,
most of the time,
would rather
be with their
mother than
with a key
worker.
These are
the families
Mothers
at Home
Matter
campaigns
on behalf of.
Mothers at Home
Matter campaigns
for the babies who spend

too long away from their mothers, and

therefore whose stress levels will have
a lifelong negative impact on them.
We campaign for the mothers who are
devastated to have to leave their children
with others while they work - not to
further an exciting career, but to make
ends meet. We campaign on behalf of the
children who would love to be picked up
by their mother after school, rather than
by the childminder. We campaign on
behalf of the teenagers who are in danger
of joining the statistics of pregnancies
and drug taking which occurs between
4pm and 6pm, at least in the sleepy
village where I live, and who need the
security of a loving homelife after school.
We campaign for mothers who arrive
home too tired after a stressful day to
give their children the love and time that
they need.
Most children, most of the time are
fine. But its the times theyre not fine,
when they need the stabilising influence
of a loving and caring mother, which
really matter. My children have had me
around all of the time, which includes
times they would have been equally
happy with a childminder, and times
when they have needed me to pick
them up at the end of a bruising day at
school. I have been with them all of the
school holidays, including times they
would probably have preferred to be at
an exciting holiday club activity, and
times they have relished being able to
veg on the sofa and play games together
on a rainy day, of which there have been
several this summer.
There is no one way of living the perfect
family life. Many mothers in paid work,
most of the time, enjoy their work
outside the home and most of the time

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk

they
and their
children are
happy. Similarly,
many mothers at home full time, most of
the time, wouldnt change their lives for
anything. Most of the time I have had
time to be the sort of mother I wanted
to be. Most of the time my children
have been able to take me for granted,
in the best possible way. How tragic for
those who, most of the time, are living
the opposite life to what theyd hoped
for. How sad for the children who, most
of the time, struggle with the
hours their mothers have
to work.
Mothers at Home
Matter campaigns for
families to be able to
live the lives they want
most of the time.

Claire Paye, Editor

email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Claire and her children

From the Chair - Who Cares and Who Minds?

ts been an incredible
few weeks in politics,
culminating in the election of
a new leader for the Labour
party. Signs are there will be more

opportunity for cross-party debate on

the value of care to challenge the poor
treatment of caregivers in policy-making.
The document launched at the outset
of Jeremy Corbyns leadership campaign
- Working with Women - states
that women do the lions share of all
care work and that unpaid care in
this country is a major issue women
who are caring for children, older and
disabled people with no remuneration
whatsoever. This needs to be fully
recognised and valued as skilled work.
Further on the document stresses the
need to recognise womens caring roles
through tax and pension rights.
Also prioritised are increased spending
on childcare and more mothers in the
workforce and presumably in board
rooms. This is a model which attracts
cross party consensus. But, in recent
years too few policymakers have dared
to talk about other equally important
narratives for fear of being labelled
regressive rather than progressive,
even though it would signal a more
inclusive approach to offer policies that
look at all the different roles we play in
life, not only when in paid employment.
Target driven culture
In the policy arena theres a great deal
of focus on international league tables
of female participation in employment
and policies are designed to meet global
equality and growth targets. There
appears to be little scrutiny of whether
the desired outcomes are being achieved
(presumably hoping for prosperity and
progress for greater numbers of people,
even as we seem to be heading in the
opposite direction...). And of course
there are unintended consequences - for
example more women chivvied into low
paid work, separated from their babies,
no longer able to afford family housing
as two incomes become the norm.
Hmmmm did they call it progress?
We would argue that truly progressive
policies recognise diversity, respect
choice, value the equal contribution of
care, respect family and childhood and
reflect the complexities of the life cycle.
Denying the value of caring for others is

short-sighted and discriminatory. In the

end we all lose if people cant afford to
provide care and have a decent standard
of living.
MAHM in action
Over the next couple of months MAHM
will be debating these issues at a number
of events. We are hosting a session at
the Conservative Party Conference
and also attending the Labour party
conference session entitled The Politics
of Motherhood: How does public policy
shape families and can it do it better?
We will also be hosting a panel at
Feminism in London.
Important date for the diary: on October
10th its our Open meeting and AGM
(see page 12). We hope you can join us.

Family Life Cycle

What is MAHM calling for? We need
an urgent inquiry into how our socioeconomic systems might properly value
care-giving. We need a family life cycle
perspective. A narrow snapshot in
time can be misleading: for example is
a parent without an income a burden
on the state if he/she is busy providing
childcare? 10/15 years may already
have been spent in full time work,
contributing to tax revenue and, given
the opportunity, he/she will return
to work in the next phase of the life
cycle. Meanwhile the other parent is
also paying tax and contributing to the
childs upbringing (or should be) even
when they live apart. No-one should be
at risk of poverty or labelled as somehow
unequal because they are doing the
bulk of care-giving work. Denying the
economic contribution of care and

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk

community work
is not progress and
neither is uninterrupted paid work the
only modern solution.
We also need robust age
discrimination laws and insightful
employers who dont fixate on gaps in
the CV. Women aged over 40/50 years
old also have a lot to offer for a further
15/20 years of working life.
Equality for All
The new Womens Equality Party
wants equal parenting and caregiving.
However, we believe that in work and
care there is more than one way, and
families are all different. It is more
complex than the number of nappies
changed or the size of the pay cheque.
Number of hours dedicated to paid
work is not necessarily reflected in
weekly earnings. Neither can we claim
to have equality when what happens
behind closed doors may appear fair (for
example a two and a half day week for
both parents) to a casual observer, but
can mask inequalities, or disrespectful
relationships.
We are hopeful that a younger
generation of voters agree that invisible
work matters equally and that penalties
against family responsibilities or
discriminatory attitudes towards
caregivers and dependents (eg punitive
family tax systems, loss of status, denial
of a voice in policy, loss of welfare
and income support) are no longer
acceptable in a civilised, modern society.
We need far more than a one-size-fits-all,
top-down approach. We need to elevate
the status of care.
The Economics of Care
The economics of care is complex
but some things are clear: changing
demographics inevitably means a rise
in costs in health, social care and in
pensions. And in this climate its a puzzle
that the government claims to afford
to further expand childcare provision
to 30 free hours per week, without a
corresponding hike in taxation to help
pay for it all.
The Early Years sector has vociferously
rejected the term free when theres a
shortfall in government funding per
child - and its even likely that rates
charged will have to go up to meet the
additional costs involved. Research
indicates that there are no additional

email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

benefits to 3 and 4 year olds of full days

of registered care, so the rationale
behind it (and offering tax relief to
families on joint incomes of up to
299,000) is still unclear.
Safeguarding quality provision in
care will always be costly and its not an
option to cut corners or compromise on
adult:client ratios. Babies in particular
require a great deal of dedicated care,
as is often debated at forums like 1001
Critical Days, but running a top-quality
setting is expensive (training, expansion
of premises, qualifications, decent ratios,
equipment, resources, monitoring and
evaluation, inspections etc) and is highly
regulated. At the same time staff costs
of the care sector are set to rise as a
result in long-overdue improvements in
hourly rates. The government is cutting
tax credits - and care settings will be
expected to offer more realistic rates
of pay (long over-due in the sector) as
income support is phased out. Many
employers have warned they may have to
close due to a combination of increased
demand and rising staff costs.
Safeguarding the Family and Savings to
Taxpayers
Its doubtful that replacing the family
and outsourcing more care is sustainable.
Neither is it an affordable solution
when the extra cost (to taxpayers) likely
outweighs any additional tax receipts.
Invaluable family care and community
work saves taxpayers a fortune but as
a number of politicians have told me,
we need more evidence to prove our
case. We need to somehow prove that
the State will save when people can take
good care of one another, can afford
housing with adequate living space to
share (housing benefit savings), can offer
emotional and practical support (e.g.
savings in mental health services), focus
on family care (savings in subsidised
childcare provision), companionship and
so on. We know the economy relies on
GDP to measure success, but its surely
common sense that the economy also
depends on non-GDP activity and on
people leading healthier, happier, more
balanced lives.

Marie Peacock, Chair

News and Media Update - Beyond the General Election

ince the election of the

Conservative Party in May,
the Government has started
the process of implementing
the policies listed in its
manifesto. This includes the

Childcare Bill focusing on the doubling

of the hours of free childcare (note
this was previously known as early
education for 3 and 4 year olds). This
will amount to a total of 30 hours free
provision per week for households that
have all adults in paid employment.
Most of the details make for a
disappointing read due to the absence
of any parallel or transferable support
recognising the financial burden facing
families with a parent deployed at home.
However, many of us listening
to the second reading of
the Childcare Bill in
the House of Lords
were very glad to
hear MAHMs name
mentioned and words
from our economics
discussion paper
Who CARES about the
family? quoted.
There were many matters
of concern raised by different Lords
regarding the Bill but strikingly, several
members took the opportunity to
highlight its intrinsic unfairness in
supporting only paid-for care while
ignoring the importance of the parent,
usually the mother, which is providing
care for their children and the associated
financial penalties that come with that.
Here are some quotes from the debate
that took place in the House of Lords, 16
June 2015:
the provision of yet another
innovation that will further assist
two-earner families, and by definition
thereby leave one-earner families in
a poorer position, is seen by many as
compounding an existing injustice.
Lord Browne of Belmont
The Lord Bishop of Durham spoke of
his concerns regarding the impression
increasingly...created that a parent
choosing not to work but to raise their
child themselves is somehow not doing
the best for the nation or the child.

involved in making or commenting on

policy are by definition working people.
But there is a danger of forgetting the
enormous contribution made by many
remarkable mothers who are now
classed, rather slightingly, as people who
do not work. Has the state really resolved
to discriminate against families where
one partner does not work but instead
devotes their time to childcare? Lord
True
The Childcare Bill and the remarks made
by the Lords above caught the attention
of the media and led to further requests
for comment and discussion in the
national press and on local radio from
Mothers at Home Matter.
Further activity followed over the
summer months, including several
members of Mothers at Home
Matter being published in the
letters pages of both the
Telegraph and the Guardian
newspapers (see p10 of this
newsletter and the latest
news page on our website to
see these and other articles
of interest.)
Also on the website in the
What Parents Say section are
experiences and views written by
mothers, fathers and grandparents. We
are very grateful for those who have
contributed to this page. Many members
feel that they are swimming against
the tide and are in need of affirmation
that even though their parental choices
may not be publicly acknowledged they
are equally valid. Reading about other
members experiences can give clarity,
purpose and a sense of community to
many other parents.
If you would like to contribute your
experiences to this page, please email:
info@mothersathomematter.co.uk
Members of the Committee are looking
forward to representing MAHM during
the political party conference season and
beyond
- either attending events or
hosting our own.
See p4 of this
newsletter. More
updates soon!

there is always a risk of institutional

bias in policy-making when those

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk

email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Imogen Thompson,
Media &
Communications

MAHM at the Conservative Party Conference

Supporting Working Parents
but who CARES?

others at Home Matter is holding

an event at the Conservative Party
Conference on Sunday 4th October,
1745-1900 to continue our ongoing fight
for families to be able to choose to care
for their children themselves. If you
cant attend, please encourage your MP
to do so. This article summarises
the arguments well be
making.
Childcare funding
The Governments priority
is to fund the increased
outsourcing of childcare.
Their rationale is that
working mothers are good
for family life because they
increase family income and good
for the State as they offer increased tax
revenues. Their argument is therefore,
in all except the most serious cases of
neglect, an economic one. They do not
dare suggest that anyone can look after
a child better than their own mother or
father. Or that any children would rather
be in daycare than at home. The sole
argument that matters is the economic
one.
Genuine choice makes economic sense
We will therefore start our talk with the
economic argument. The Government
spends a fortune on outsourced childcare
(at least 7.5bn). It therefore makes
economic sense for the Government
to encourage parents to care for their
children themselves rather than
discriminate against them for doing so.
Transferable tax allowances (and a single
persons allowance for single parents)
are one way of reducing the penalty on
families who sacrifice one income to stay
at home with their children. A family
who uses the transferable tax allowance
would save (on 40,000)
3,200 a year in
tax and NI. The
Treasury would
lose that
3,200 but
would save
the 3,136
of childcare
subsidy that
that family might

otherwise receive. It is effectively

a cost-neutral decision, and would
mean that families have a real
choice.

Genuine choice makes emotional

sense
So, it makes economic sense for the
Government to give families a real
choice. It also makes emotional sense.
Some mothers are very happy with
their working life. Other
mothers are equally happy
to dedicate themselves to
family life. Why should
one model of family
life be supported over
another? The exclusive
focus on supporting
working mothers is
particularly concerning
where mothers are not
able to live the life they want
to because they have to work and cant
spend the time they want to with their
children. No one looks back at photos of
their children and wishes they had spent
less time with them.
Love as a luxury
There are families who would love
to spend more time caring for their
children themselves but the only option
they are offered is to work longer
hours. Many families cant afford to
have a parent at home at all. It is now
considered a luxury for a child to be
cared for exclusively by their mother and
not in State-subsidised childcare. These
families are also voters whose opinions
matter and would love to be able to
choose to care for their children as much
as they want to. They dont feel caring
for their children is a luxury, but a
necessity.

easier to make good relationships at

school, to have self-confidence and be
able to empathise with others because of
the way their brains have developed
in response to love. Babies are hardwired to develop best when they are
cared for consistently, regularly and
reliably by someone who loves them
indiscriminately and totally, be that a
parent or grandparent. Mothers and
fathers know what their children need
and long to be able to provide it.
Conclusion
It makes economic sense to offer a
level playing field which doesnt, by
discrimination in the tax regime, confine
the loving, consistent care of a mother to
the status of an unattainable luxury. It
makes emotional sense, because families
want to have a genuine choice. And it
makes developmental sense because
babies and children thrive on the loving,
consistent, attentive care of their mother.

Genuine choice makes

developmental sense
It is certainly a necessity where
the optimal development
of babies is concerned.
Babies need to form a solid
attachment to their mother
or, in some cases, father in
order to make the most of
their lives. It therefore makes
developmental sense for babies and
children to be cared for as much as
necessary by their parents. Babies with
a strong attachment to a loving, attuned,
responsive parent are likely to find it

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk

email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Claire Paye

Letters to the Papers

he newspapers publish
a range of articles on
mothering. One news item referred

to in these letters reported research

revealing that the daughters of working
mothers will earn 4% more than the
daughters of non-working mothers. This
research didnt necessarily distinguish
between mothers who had never worked
and were never likely to work and
mothers who were taking a few years
away from the workplace to raise their
children. On the other hand, there are
an increasing number of articles
written by mothers who
have given up work
because they felt they
were missing out on
raising their children.
These letters have
been written in
response to these
articles. Dr Karem
Roitman and Melanie Tibbs are
both Mothers at Home Matter committee
members.
As a stay-at-home mum, I can safely
say I feel no guilt about choosing to
abandon my professional career in order
to look after my three children (Working
mothers dont need to feel guilt, 26 June).
Any guilt that working or stay-at-home
mothers have is a result of a society
that constantly peddles the belief that
us mums can have it all. We cant, and
we have to make difficult choices that
usually result in us feeling that we have
sacrificed either spending time with
our children by working or our own
education and career by not working.
And these are the women that
actually have a choice; many
do not and end up working
hours that arent childfriendly while plugging
the gaps in childcare with
partners, grandparents and
friends.
What women would really
like is to have a genuine choice
whether to work or stay at home with
no stigma attached to either. This means
an economy that pays a wage enough
to live on without both parents needing
to work and consistently sympathetic
employers that can offer flexible working
hours. Our society needs to start
respecting women who stay at home

with their children and appreciate that

a womans contribution to society is
not necessarily immediately financially
assessable.
Dr Karem Roitman
Oxford
My life, since leaving the world of work
three years ago, is one of sorting the
children out, looking after the house,
being a school governor, helping the
PTA, going on school trips, attending
school information sessions and
events, socialising and even reading
the Guardian now and again. It is as
fulfilling as any job could be and none of
it is paid. I consider myself extremely
lucky and guilt-free.
Dr Julia Williams
Shrewsbury, Shropshire

to impact their childrens perceptions of

what it means to be a woman and to be
a mother, Id like to answer: I hope my
being at home will signal to my children
that loving them, enjoying them, and
enjoying myself is more important than
an extra 4%. I hope it tells them that
women, and all people, are more than
workers. We work to live, we dont live
to work. I hope it tells them that we
must fight for real choice: for a society
that values caring, and structures paid
work so that both women and men can
participate in caring and thus be truly
fulfilled, successful humans. (And, by the
way, I followed my mothers advice.)
Dr Karem Roitman
Oxford

I was delighted to see Alice OKeeffe

write that the left should stand up for
When I was a young girl, my
stay-at-home parents (theguardian.
mother, a stay-at-home mum,
com, 26 June). The right has certainly
would tell me over and over that if I
cast adrift parents who wish not to use
wanted to follow my dreams and have
third-party care for their children, and it
choices, I needed to get a college degree
is becoming a revolutionary (and firmly
and learn how to drive. She wanted me
feminist) concept to imagine that
to be safe, happy, successful.
equality is not only achieved via
That is what we all want for
full participation in the paid
Humanity
our children.
workplace.
is working hard
We are, however, losing
Parents in general need much
to allow individuals
sight of what success is.
greater valuing and support
to live creatively and
Humanity is working
than is currently available to
joyfully, rather than
hard to allow individuals
them.
simply working to
to live creatively and
Janet Mansfield
survive.
joyfully, rather than simply
working to survive. A full
life includes laughter, play, love.
If my children make 4% less money
than their peers, but are not plagued by
depression and stress; if they go to sleep
giggling, and know the incomparable
warmth of a little body melting
into theirs in complete trust
and dependency, I will be
deliriously happy. They
will have succeeded.
It is not that career
success is unimportant or
unnecessary, far from it, it is
simply that it is not the whole
picture. To have only a career
and barely enough energy to see your
child is not a true choice.
So, to Dr Allen (Daughters of working
mothers do better in life and sons may
be more caring too, 25 June), and her
concern that women who dont [work]
have to think hard about how the role
they have within the household is going

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk

In the UK, the work of caring for

children goes completely unrecognised
in the tax system (unlike the vast
majority of OECD countries) and unpaid
care is valued at 343bn per year by the
ONS. Someone needs to stand up for
these people who contribute billions to
the economy every year but nothing to
GDP and therefore have no value.
When one parent opts to leave paid
work in order to care for and support a
growing family, it costs a whole salary.
Meanwhile families on two substantial
incomes can continue to claim child
benefit (long after the single-income
family has lost theirs) and they pay far
less tax. This is not about somehow
indulging cupcake-baking mummies,
this is about levelling the playing field
so that individual families can make
sensible choices about what is good for
them over the entire period of having
dependent children at home.

email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Melanie Tibbs

Attachment and Resilience

hese comments are based

on a discussion with
Mark*, a psychologist who works

part time in a school with parents,

children and teachers and who
shares care of his three children (all
under 8) with his wife, with each
working 2 days.
Shared care
Mark and his wife decided to share
care as they felt it would lead to a more
positive family life if one of them was
always at home with their children. Both
were keen to be able to spend time with
their children and they were just about
able to afford it. They decided that they
would sacrifice being able to save and
that they would both stall their careers,
but they feel it has definitely been worth
it. Mark feels that being able to be at
home as a dad is a great privilege and
there are many advantages to having the
dad around to raise the children in such
an involved way. The children can draw
on two different ways of relating and
behaving, and are able to adjust to the
different approaches their parents bring.
They see how their parents respond to
similar circumstances and the differing
ways in which their parents deal with
frustration and conflict in daily life. It
has helped their children to develop
empathy as there are double the number
of perspectives to take into account.
It is difficult to say what exactly fathers
bring to raising children as no two
fathers are alike. There are probably
more differences within the sexes than
between the sexes. It is particularly
important for boys to have a good male
role model. Being at home regularly
means that there is no father coming
home as a celebrity on a Friday night.
As they share care, Mark and his wife
make sure they agree on behaviour
management.
What children need
As a psychologist, Mark is clear
that attachment is unquestionably
fundamental to a childs positive
development. It offers the clearest
explanation for why children develop as
they do. No one disputes the core value
of a strong attachment. Psychotherapy
takes as a starting point the value of
attachment how strong relationships
build brains and form characters.

Empathy
The wartime need for extreme resilience
meant that previous generations the
war generations and their children/our
parents tended to keep their feelings to
themselves and not show emotion. Many
parents today are more emotionally
attuned to their children and are more
responsive to their needs than their
parents were. The flip side to this is that
many of us have gone too far in terms
of pandering to our childrens wants too
much and even defining ourselves by
them, living our lives through them.
That said, our generation tends to
understand our own emotions much
better and therefore can empathise
with others. Many parents today are
aware of the need to validate their
childrens emotions, allowing their
children to feel angry, sad or confused,
and to express this. They are also more
skilled in pointing out the effect that
their childrens behaviour is having
on themselves or on others. In his
psychology work, Mark found that
children who didnt have the effects of
their behaviour explained to them clearly
lacked the empathetic skills to negotiate
the world. This is more obvious at the
extreme of criminal behaviour, but is also
evident along the scale.
Research
In assessing which parenting and
childcare options offer positive outcomes
for children, what is needed is a large,
comprehensive, independent and
well-funded study. We are just at the
beginning of recognising the impact on
children of issues such as attachment,
and we dont yet know the full impact of
a generation of outsourced childcare.
Resilience
One important focus of research at
the moment centres on the question
of resilience. This is defined as how
children cope with setbacks and
what strategies they use to overcome
disappointment. It does not mean that
children never suffer from experiences
such as broken homes or early separation
from their parents, but rather refers to
how they learn to overcome difficulties
in life.
Resilience starts with a strong
attachment and is linked to how much
children believe in themselves. It is
difficult to have true confidence in
yourself, to believe in your ability

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk

to overcome
problems, if you
didnt have a secure
attachment at
the beginning, as attachment builds
the brain. At the extreme, trauma will
force a child to build a shell around
themselves to prevent this event ever
happening again. This limits their ability
to attach, which then affects their own
relationships and parenting style.
Overcoming adversity
One example of building resilience is the
two year old who falls off his bike and
looks to his parent to see how he should
respond. He makes eye to eye contact
and mirrors his parents response. He
works out whether he can cope with the
situation by what he sees in his parents
eyes. If his parent overreacts, looking
terrified and shocked, cortisol (the stress
hormone) will be overproduced. If he
finds reassurance in his parents eyes
and knows that although his parent
acknowledges he is distressed because he
is in pain, this is a situation which can
be handled by both parent and child, his
stress hormones will reduce and he will
cope much better. The childs experience
of falling and coping with the situation
builds resilience.
Professor Sir Michael Rutter, who
is described as the father of child
psychology, has conducted extensive
research into resilience, and the
importance of learning from difficulties
as a route to resilience and success. He
has found that what children most need
are to learn to fail well and to have
parents who are prepared to say no to
them.
Failing well
At the school where Mark works there
are a number of children who have been
taught that it is unacceptable to fail.
This causes them a great deal of anxiety.
Many are high achievers but are at the
risk of anxiety and depression because
they arent allowed to fail. Alternatively,
they are told that they are brilliant even
if they are not performing particularly
well. This results in children not trying
as hard.
Growth mindset
Carol Dweck is a psychologist who
has identified what she calls a growth
mindset which explains why some
children develop better educationally

email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Marks Book Reviews

than others. Children who are praised

for being clever on completing a task,
when given a choice, will select an easier
subsequent task in order to preserve
their clever status and to avoid failing.
Children who are praised for their effort
and strategies will tend to select a harder
subsequent task as they arent afraid
of failure. You should praise children,
using specific examples, such as for
effort. Children can sense if they are
being praised for something they havent
done. Some schools have introduced
an award for mistake of the week,
recognising that children have stretched
themselves and taken risks, irrespective
of the outcome.
Childcare options
When deciding on childcare options, it is
important to recognise that all children
have different personalities. Some will
be extrovert, some introvert. If they are
naturally shy and introverted it may well
damage them if they are put into nursery
too soon. If they derive their energy
from being with other children, they may
be fine. It is difficult to come to absolute
conclusions as to the best form of
childcare in every case. Some cases are
clearer than others. Children may benefit
more from some time spent in a good
nursery rather than all their time with an
insecure and pushy parent who doesnt
set boundaries. On the other hand, a
bad nursery with high staff turnover will
clearly not help the child develop the
way that time spent with a loving parent
who is attuned and attentive to his or her
child would. Nannies can be brilliant as
they may be around for many years and
provide continuity of care and a mix of
fun and solid boundaries or they may
leave, shattering what was a primary
(important) attachment for the child.
Grandparents can also play a valuable
role in offering a variety of parenting
styles.
The difficulty for working parents
comes in terms of finding downtime with
their children. There is a tendency to try
to make the weekends count by doing
something bonding or exciting. There
is little bumping along together time.
Working parents and their children are
often tired and stressed and so their time
together is compromised.
Conclusions
All children differ and therefore will
thrive in different settings. Attachment

is key and having a parent at home full

time will offer more time in which to
develop a strong, secure attachment.
The best parents are those who can set
consistent boundaries, teach resilience
from a base of unconditional love,
empathise with their children whilst
explaining the effects of their childs
behaviour on others in a loving way, and
encourage a growth mindset through
praising effort rather than achievement.
*Not his real name

Book Reviews

These books have been

fundamental in shaping
psychologist Marks
practical work with parents
and children.
Why love matters (how
affection shapes a babys
brain), by Sue Gerhardt
This book celebrates the absolutely
fundamental role that a mother or
father (or an exceptionally well-attuned,
consistent and caring care-giver) has in
shaping a babys entire emotional and
social armoury. This is because during
pregnancy and in the first two years of
life.the social brain is shaped and
an individuals emotional style and
emotional resources are established.
This is because babies are not born
fully formed emotionally, they develop
in response to how they are loved and
they learn everything they know about
the world from the way their mother or
father behaves with them. Babies need
a caregiver who identifies with them so
strongly that the babys needs feel like
hers; [because] he is still physiologically
and psychologically an extension of her.
The book identifies how babies learn to
feel secure and identify with the feelings
of others and examines the lifelong
problems which can arise
when babies dont receive
loving, consistent and
dependable care in their
first few years.
The Neuroscience of Human
Relationships (Attachment
and the developing social brain), by Louis
Cozolino
This is a more clinical book than Sue
Gerhardts, although it covers similar
ground. Cozolino describes the brain
in some detail. However, it is full of

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk

interesting, and often heart-breaking case

studies, of where things have gone wrong
in a childs life, leading to behavioural
and emotional problems. There is a
great amount of detail relating to how
vital a mothers touch, smell, sound and
appearance are for a newborn. Early
bonding and attachment experiences
result in a cascade of biochemical
processes that stimulate and enhance
the growth and connectivity of neural
networks throughout the brain (Schore,
1994). On the other hand, withdrawal
from those on whom the baby depends
for biological stimulation and growth
causes distress, pain and anxiety (Hofer,
1984, 1987). In a chapter on Early Stress,
Cozolino highlights and explains the link
between positive attentive parenting and
subsequent physical and mental health.
There is also a fascinating description
of one of Cozolinos patients who, in
spite of living in safety and success in
the USA had picked up his immigrant
parents traumas and exhibited similar
traits, such as always being
on guard when walking
in public streets, despite
never having been told of
his parents distressing
backgrounds.
Beyond Deserving, by
Dorothy Martyn
Dorothy, also a therapist, takes an
imaginative approach to dealing with
issues children face as a result of poor
parenting. Her central thesis is the
importance of non-manipulative love.
Out go all my bribes and threats, in
come the qualities of givenness the
fact that love is not earned, it is given
instinctively, participation (or mercy)
being able to enter into someones
distress and understand it, not stand
over it in judgement; and patience
allowing space and time for a childs
being to emerge without coercion,
taking time to understand why a child is
reacting as they are and communicating
that they are understood, then helping
the child move forwards. There are a
myriad of case studies throughout the
book which help us understand why the
children involved behaved as they did
and also how they were helped to cope
with their distress. The key point is that
responsibility for their behaviour didnt
lie with the children alone.
by Claire Paye

email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Mothering Transition-Age Children

One mothers personal
experience of trying to
mother, not smother, her
tweenagers.

have a secret: I dont want my children

to grow up. At the same time I want to
bring up two well-adjusted, independent,
resilient adults, who dont end up living
at home forever. Its a paradox that many
mothers I know struggle with.
I imagine that most of you took your
kids to see Inside Out on one of the
soggier days of summer. This great
Disney Pixar film is about the inner
mental and psychological workings of
an eleven year old girl called Riley. The
part that really got me was when Joy was
hugging the redundant, fading memories
of Rileys toddler days. As she sobbed I
felt the tears slide down my face; I knew
exactly how she felt.
The early years of my children have
been and gone, Ive got the t-shirt and
nigh on thirty thousand photos to prove
it. But I can never get those squishy
babies back. And now my sons
in Year 6 and my daughters
in Year 4, things are set
to change even more.
A case in point is
when the other day
my children, after
much pleading,
walked a little bit
of the way to school
on their own - they
were going to meet
a Mum friend and her
two children, who we
always meet on the school
run. I peered round the corner,
watching them till they were out of sight,
as they confidently chatted on their way.
I rushed around feeling an odd mix of
calm and anxiety, but the phrase that was
repeating in my head was, My babies!.
The society we live in doesnt help our
protective mother instincts either. The
news bombards us with a long list of
terrible things that can go wrong if our
children leave our sight for more than a
millisecond. The list of health and safety
equipment thats now available for our
babies is virtually endless - heartbeat
sensors, baby monitors, socket covers,
cupboard catches, stair gates and so
on. Up until the age of about 10, we are
made to feel that we are being criminally

negligent if we even leave them for 5

minutes in the car while we nip into
Tesco. Then they get to the end of Year
5 and literally over that single summer
holiday it seems to be expected that our
children go from holding our hands to
cross the road, to being allowed to walk
to and from school on their own. Its a
huge leap!
Why being a MAH makes it harder
The truth is that although I am
passionate about being a mother at home
it does mean that I have to tackle the
independence of my children in an active
way.
My working mother friends have
HAD to adjust slowly to the increasing
independence of their offspring. Once
their children get to Year 6 its a relief
that they no longer have to employ
childminders to babysit their children
for a couple of hours after school; they let
their children walk to school so that they
get into work on an earlier train.
However, as a mother at home, the
walk to school with my children is an
important part of our day. There
is time to talk, time to
observe whats going on
in nature, the seasons,
in our community. In
short, being a mother
at home means that
being protective can
often come naturally,
just because were
there more.
The other thing is
that my children have
finally, finally got to an age
when most of the time they are
a total joy to be around. Theyre helpful,
good company, funny, can play games
and so on. And now youre telling me
that I have to let these blighters go!
At the same time Im aware
that Im standing on
the threshold of
a new phase of
parenthood,
and spending
this Autumn
going round all
the secondary
schools is definitely
ramming it home. If I
dont prepare my son for the
change thats coming next year, hell find
the transition overwhelming.

Putting the
decision in his
hands
The other question I find myself asking
is that its all very well for me to psych
myself up enough to send him up the
road to post a letter, but is he actually
ready for more?
Im happy to leave him in the park
when hes with other friends, but if
he was somewhere on his own and
something went wrong, Im really not
sure hed be able to cope.
However, I have to question that point
of view, and ask myself if actually, its
me that wouldnt cope. I have to admit
that since hes turned 10 Ive noticed
a real change in him. His attitude has
become more mature. Hes playing less
with his massive lego collection or with
his younger sister, who tends to play
by herself more these days. Hes also
noticing more and taking in more of our
adult conversations.
I guess the answer is to involve him
in the decisions and to start getting
him used to the idea of doing things
independently.
I have begun to give him more
responsibility, although a fair amount of
this seems to be me saying despairingly
to him, Youre not a baby any more,
youre ten years old! when he hasnt: put
his pants in the dirty washing/hung his
coat up/brushed his teeth etc. However,
Ive started to get them to make their
own packed lunches in the morning, hes
learnt how to turn the oven on, and hes
recently found out which is the washing
machine and which is the tumble dryer.
Sigh.
Im also in discussion with a mum
friend about my son and her daughter,
also in Year 6, walking to school together
once a week. Its not much, but its a
start.
They DO need us
There is another side to this story,
which is that it is assumed that when
our children get to Year 6/7, they
dont really need us any more.
Having spoken to other mothers
whove been through this stage,
its at this stage that our children
go from needing us for their physical
wellbeing, to needing us for their
emotional wellbeing.
There was actually a feature on Radio
4 today about how children arent being

properly prepared for the huge changes

that they have to deal with on moving
from primary to secondary school.
So thats the reason why, whereas
most of my other friends went back to
work a long time ago, I will still be here,
when they get in from school, during the
summer holidays and at all those other
times.
I know that there will come a time, all
too soon, when he will be walking off
out the door with no need of my physical
presence, but what I want him to know, is
that I will always be there for him - in the
words of the famous song - whenever he
needs me.
Poppy Pickles

Here are some great practical

tips on how to look after your
Pre-Teens:

Dont worry if their appetites go

through the roof - its the first
surges of adolescent growth
spurts.

40 - 45% of their adult skeleton

is being built during the pre-teen
and teen years. Your child should
be getting 4 glasses of milks
worth of calcium EVERY DAY.
You can supplement with yoghurt,
cheese or calcium fortified cereals
or juice.

Its important your children eat

iron due to their expanding blood
volume as they grow - try leafy
greens, dried fruit and lean meats.

They still need 9 - 10 hours of sleep

per night.

Computers, games consoles and

TVs should be switched off at least
an hour before bedtime.

Encourage them to tidy their

bedroom at the end of every day!

Ideally children should have an

hour of exercise a day. This means
they should walk to AND from
school.

Involve him/her in after school

activities or summer clubs where
they will meet and socialise with
children from other schools.

Tips taken from Your Child, Year by

Year - Everything you need to know
to raise happy, healthy kids by Carol
Cooper, Claire Halsey, Su Laurent and
Karen Sullivan, published by Dorling
Kindersley Ltd.

Book Review

feeling cross and thereby validate his

feelings, before justifying our own
behaviour. Interpreting a childs, or, just
as importantly, a teenagers, feelings to
them helps them to understand that it is
ok to respond emotionally to a situation
before suggesting ways of dealing with
their feelings.
If you read just one book about
parenting, read this one. It turns much
received parenting wisdom on its head.

Claire Paye

Infants and children: an

introduction to emotional
development,
by Mirabelle Maslin
This book covers a huge range of
parenting dilemmas with a very light,
gracious touch. Mirabelle has huge
sympathy for children going through the
difficult process of making sense of the
world, and their parents who respond
instinctively according to their own
experience of being children. The book
is very easy to read due to the many
cameos or case studies which Mirabelle
cites. Although a relatively short book,
she covers a wide range of topics, from
temper tantrums a misleading and
unhelpful term according the author to
emerging sexuality to a reinterpretation
of the negative phrase, separation
anxiety.
The book is suffused with a sense of
grace, understanding and validation
as the author repeatedly challenges
common parenting practices, such as our
tendency to encourage toddlers to jump
up again when theyve hurt themselves,
pretending to them that they arent really
hurt, or avoiding giving in to attention
seeking behaviour, when attention is
really what is required.
One gem that I have taken from the
book is the importance of helping a
child to identify what they are feeling
and validating it. So, rather than
telling a child off for responding
angrily to a situation, it is better to
explain to the child why he might be

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk

How to relate to your

teenagers
We hope to write more about
teenagers in the next newsletter.
In the meantime, here are some
tips for affirming and building up
teenagers:

Recognise the social baseline

theory that were made for
social relationships and our
brains work better when were
in relationships.
Teenagers will tell themselves
that they are not .enough,
eg Im not pretty enough, Im
not clever enough. The role
of their parents is to tell them
that they are enough.
Exercise your empathy:
try to identify with their
perspective; stay away from
judgement; recognise the
strength of their emotions.

Anti-shame strategies:

Dont use shame to discipline

Accept and affirm who they
are
Prioritise your relationship
above all else pick your
battles wisely
Try to let go of your own
agenda

Be a container for their feelings

be bigger, stronger, wiser and kind.
These ideas come from a talk by Dr
Clare Gates MRCPsych on Image,
Shame and the Teenage Brain

email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

The Womens Equality Party

am a founding member
of the Womens Equality
Party UK, and have been
working with them on policy
development. As a mother of two

at home, I have started to speak out

through the Politics of Mothering
blog and political pamphlet, as
well as the Huffington Post.
Given my areas of
interest: women, mothers
and children, I could not
sit back and let a party
steam ahead without
knocking on the door
and demanding to speak.
As women, we are socialised not
to speak up for our rights or to make a
fuss. Well, this is politics. And Im not
one to keep quiet. If a party seeking
to represent women cannot tolerate a
woman demanding that women who are
mothers at home not just mothers who
are also employees should be listened
to, respected and properly addressed
in policy, if they (its a womens party)
cannot value mothers, what hope do we
have? I insisted that Mothers at Home
Matter and Global Womens Strike be
heard in this process given the huge
number of families who wish for greater
support for families to provide familybased care. In the end, they agreed for
me to head a sub-group and I have spent
some months engaging with this new
party.
I still feel that this is a wonderful
opportunity for a political entity finally
to do something for women which no
other mainstream political party has
been doing: value care, do more to
support mothers or fathers at home
with their families and to press for the
restructuring of tax and allowances
to ensure that no family is penalised
for wishing to provide care of their
children themselves. I was hopeful
that WEP could really present policies
which finally reflected the diverse needs,
circumstances and wants of families up
and down the country. Radical, right?
Well, the WEP party has, at the time
of writing, not been formally launched
nor policy firmly decided. When it
announced its inception I wrote the
following phrase on my blog: : lets hope
that the Womens Equality Party does
not decide that some women are more
equal than mothers and that it must not

10

allow itself to become the simply Women

Employees Equality Party (or WEEP).
Despite my involvement in WEP, I still
fear that this new Party will do exactly
those things, inadvertently or by design.
I am keeping my fingers crossed;
however the past four months have not
been without frustration, incredulity
and emphatic argument.
Indeed one of the most
interesting features of equality
and mothering is that it is one
of those areas where, actually,
we know that a woman can
do anything a man can do
but there are three big things a
woman can do that a man cannot:
create life; give birth; and breastfeed.
Equality without recognition of
the status and importance of
these things, and of the fact
that many women wish
to deprioritise work for
a time that suits them in
their family life cycle, is
not equality. That is why,
at the outset, I expressed
disappointment with the
suggestion that Equality in
Parenting could somehow be
measured by the use of bingo chips:,
totting up the hours and number of
nappies changed, calculating the number
of hours in the office vs the number of
hours doing the burden of home.
There are many ways to achieve the
aims of choice and flexibility, when not
constrained by a superficial approach of
equality as sameness . For example, it
could:
Value care by exploring state funded
stipends for carers of preschool
children.
WHY should all the money go to
commercial providers instead of
following the child for parents to choose
to do with as they wish? The current
system demonstrates that the mother/
father at home is not valued or deemed
worthy of support or recognition. I am
fearful of WEP feeding into this. WEP
could be leading the way to a fairer
society through policies such as greater
support for parents through the tax
and allowances system. Yet I am not
confident that WEP is taking on board
the need to go beyond the dominant
political consensus of employment/
childcare as liberation for women.

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk

Recognise that all womens rights

matter, including that most
unfashionable of beings: a mother who
wishes to care for her children at home.
I am concerned that the policy
working group is being dominated by
fathers interests, and that WEP may
subconsciously be using the Parenting
policy as a sacrificial lamb to apologise
for the Partys actual existence. Whilst
I agree that fathers are important,
as a feminist I would be extremely
disappointed to see primary focus in
this area placed on getting fathers to
take on a fair share whilst ignoring other
ways to help mothers. It is necessary
to address both, surely after all, isnt
this the Equality party? As
I have said, women
are silenced. We
have little voice
in society. If
WEP continue
to enforce
that system
whereby the
privileged men/
women, male
and employment
interests dominate,
then what are WEP about?
Explore policies which would lessen
the detrimental effects on women of
time out of the workforce: pension rules
not penalising parents for time out for
dependents; funding for retraining after
time out; a stipend for carers of preschool
children, at the very least, or a citizens
income, if feeling brave.
Demand the reinstatement of Child
Benefit for all parents of young
children.
It was won by women for women. It
was recognised that a mother at home
(nowadays equally applicable to a father)
is rendered dependent on the whims
and generosity of an earning partner,
and that that is unacceptable. To fail
to demand its reinstatement would fail
women. It would perpetuate the view
that the parent at home predominantly
women do not matter.
I am concerned that systemic and
entrenched issues of discrimination
against women, including the devaluing
and caging of the private sphere of
family care - are being left out of genuine
consideration by WEP and risk being
perpetuated. I am concerned that the

email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

voices of many parents up and down the

country are being neglected by WEP as
much as by the mainstream parties.
As a feminist, I wish to see a just
society for women and men. I want to
see the end to violence against women.
I want to see the end of discrimination
against women by reason of their biology.
I want to see fathers being free to care for
their children, and for employers to be
obligated to make allowances for parents
of whichever gender. I am on board with
that.
What is frustrating is that the premise
of dual income (whether shared, flexible
working, and so on) is not what is
desired by many families with young
children, yet we may be faced with a new
party which continues to reinforce that
political consensus. It is not something
which necessarily fits every family, either,
in terms of the occupations or income
levels or childrens needs. Many families
do not want their children to be in
childcare before the age of three. That is
a fact that needs to be recognised. It is no
judgement. I, for one, support parents
choices to fit their work/family lives as
they see fit. WEP must do the same for
all parents, including those who would
like one parent to stay at home.
My key message to WEP, and to
political parties generally, is: A womans
place is where she wants to be. Not where
WEP wants her to be (in work AND at
home); Not where other parties want her
to be (working to the bone as though she
were a non-person unless she had a PAYE
Code). A mothers place is where she
wants to be. She deserves support and
the freedom from penalty in her choice.
I have invited WEP to give the mother
at home that respect. Its the least she
deserves. Yet, I anticipate the launch with
extreme trepidation.
If you would like your voice to be
heard in this debate, I urge you to contact
WEP on info@womensequality.
org.uk, @WEP_UK, or on Facebook
(Womens Equality Party UK) and the
main political parties directly with your
story, your views and your ideas about
what would help families set up the care
as they see fit, including where a parent
wishes to be at home. We are entitled to
speak. Your voice matters .

Vanessa Olorenshaw

Children = Wealth Creators

friend recently told me

how upset shed felt when
a woman at her child-care
group said she didnt deserve free

child care, because she didnt work.

Her husband works, they pay taxes, but
that didnt count with this thoughtless
woman.
The attitude, that mothers at home
are non-contributors and children
are a drain on society until they are
able to work, is nonsensical. From
the moment theyre born, children
are consumers, contributing to the
economy, via their parents. Even the
poorest unemployed or disabled are
not expected to live without consumer
products. Benefits are available to
provide them with these necessities. And
indeed they are necessities, not only for
consumers but also for the producers,
the manufacturers, the workers, the
retailers, the shareholders; for all of us:
the Consumer Society.
This year, 2015, it has been estimated
that the average cost of raising just
one child to the age of 21 in the UK, is
230,000, but all that money goes back
into the economy. And yet, it seems that
institutions, authorities, even the people
who make money from the products
that children consume continue to view
children as non-contributors.
After she returned from maternity
leave, my daughter had to give up work
because child-care was cripplingly
expensive. She worked for a major toy
company who didnt provide a crche
for the children of their workers, and
yet children were the very customers
who kept them in business! Youd
have thought theyd be clever enough
to provide incentives for their workers
to have more children? Instead, they
penalised them.
Despite more women choosing not
to have children, their simmering
resentment for women who do is a
puzzle. I hear it frequently: Having
children is a lifestyle choice why
should I pay for them in my taxes? as if
children are a drain on society, instead of
the basis of our wealth.
If you think this is rubbish, consider
the alternative: if every woman in the
world decided not to, or was unable
from tomorrow to have a baby within
about eighty years our species would very
nearly be extinct and our world, as we

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk

know it, would be over.

The first to notice would be those who
make their living from children; the
midwives, the manufacturers and sellers
of prams and pushchairs, baby foods,
toys, baby clothes, disposable nappies.
Their names are Mothercare, British
Home Stores, Marks & Spencer, Boots,
Johnsons
Little by little, the whole of our
consumer society would begin to shrivel
from the feet up. All manufacturers
mentioned make adult products too.
But without baby products, their profits
would be slashed. Profits from baby
products are higher than adult products,
because the purchaser is more anxious
about quality for their children (who
looks for a bargain in baby formula?)
Very quickly about the time that
all unborn children would have been in
their 20s, the major producers of nonessentials would have disappeared. Can
you envisage Coca-Colas advertising
campaigns, aimed at adults, forty-plus?
Over the last thirty years, there has
been an unprecedented fall in fertility
rates, not just in developed countries,
in every country in the world. Forget
the population bomb. Increasingly,
populations of our most developed
countries (including us) are now facing
declining birth rates, or already below
replacement rates. The major concern
today is population aging. How will our
societies manage to maintain standards,
without the wealth that children create?
Society should change its attitude
to children, and to mothers. Mothers
should be rewarded and offered
incentives to stay at home if they wish,
because this is the most successful and
least socially costly way to bring up
children.
Childless couples should be grateful
for other peoples children; recognise
them as ultimately their future carers.
Governments should make it worthwhile
for mothers to have children.
Mothers at home DO Matter. You are
doing a bigger job for society than simply
bringing up your own children. Youre
ensuring a future for everyone.
Carolyn Ching

This article was submitted by one of our

Mothers at Home Matter members. If there
is anything you feel strongly about and would
like to write about, please contact the editor on
media-claire@mothersathomematter.co.uk

email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

11

Please come to our...

AGM and Open Meeting

Saturday 10th October, 10.30am-4pm

The Resource Centre, 356 Holloway Road, London, N7 6PA
Steve Biddulph on Healing the Hearts of Men
Dr Pam Jarvis on Evolution Matters for Mothers at Home

We d love to see you at our Open Meeting and AGM this year. Tickets are 17 each, including lunch and refreshments. Tickets
must be purchased by the 8th of October from Lynne Burnham. Please contact her on lynne.burnham@googlemail.com to
book your place and pay by bank transfer or send a cheque to Lynne Burnham, 31 Earlswood Road, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 6HD.
Tickets can be emailed to you or include an SAE if you would like your ticket to be posted.
Healing the hearts of men, Steve Biddulph
Right from the very start of my work in family therapy, nearly 40 years ago, it was clear that men were struggling. For
families to really thrive, we had to directly address the wounds and griefs of men, so they could really love their partners and
children.
In this address, I will talk about what happened to men in the 20th century, how that carried into this generation, and the
wonderful changes coming about as we find our way through this. How men can be closer to their kids, find their unique role
and how boys and girls each benefit. Moving stories, instances you will immediately recognize, and examples of how men are
healing and becoming free.
At this event also I will be launching my book Manhood especially rewritten for the UK situation. Copies will be available for
signing, but more importantly for spreading the word of a new kind of man.
Steve Biddulph has been campaigning for nearly 40 years for more loving, engaged and respectful families. His books
including Secrets of Happy Children, Raising Boys, Raising Girls and Manhood are in three million homes and 32 languages.
He is a grandfather, gardener, sailor, and professor of psychology, and partner of Shaaron. Together they raise wombats in the
wilds of Tasmania.
Evolution Matters for Mothers at Home, Dr Pam Jarvis
Dr Pam Jarvis will consider the evolution of both mothering and grandmothering and how both have been fundamental in
shaping the human species, focussing on how evolutionary principles relate to mothering.
Dr Pam Jarvis is both a historian and a graduate psychologist, with a particular interest in the way that children use play and
narrative in their emotional, social and cognitive development, an area in which she is currently engaged in research.
Pam is a member of the academic advisory team for the National Save Childhood and Too Much, Too Soon campaigns. Her
contribution to the related Better Without Baseline campaign can be viewed here: http://www.betterwithoutbaseline.org.uk/
She is originally from South London, but has lived in Yorkshire for over 25 years. She has a daughter and a twin son and
daughter, all now adults. She was a full time mother for eleven years, and now has two young grandsons.

MAHM Committee

Chair

Marie Peacock
07722 504874
info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Vice Chair

Anne Fennell
annefennellmahm@virginmedia.com

Treasurer

Pat Dudley
info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Secretary

Lynne Burnham
secretary@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Membership Secretary

Sine Pickles
sine.pickles@btinternet.com

Committee Members

Heather Ticheli, Kerry Hedley

www.mothersathomematter.co.uk
P.O. Box 43690, London SE22 9WN
@mumsdadsmatter #valuecare

12

MAHM Media Team

Media Enquiries
Claire Paye - 07972 727544
Lynne Burnham - 01737 768705
Mel Tibbs - 07929 108586
Anne Fennell - 07957 232504
Twitter
Imogen Thompson
@mumsdadsmatter
MAHM Blog
Mel Tibbs
mel.tibbs@redapplemedia.co.uk
Research Officer
Alex Payling
bassingbournbelle@hotmail.co.uk
07791 878653
Newsletter Editor
Claire Paye
media-claire@mothersathomematter.co.uk
Newsletter Design Editor
Poppy Pickles

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk

Membership of MAHM
We are a membership organisation, funded
by membership fees. The committee
members all give our time for free. Please
do consider joining us. The cost is 12.50
p.a. for individuals, 15 p.a. for couples.
You can join online through our website.
We exist to represent families who currently, or
would like to, care for their children at home
themselves.
We encourage you in your vital role as parents
We campaign for changes in the tax and benefits
system to introduce genuinely family-friendly
policies.
We promote the understanding of childrens
development needs, focusing on the value of
maternal care.
We call for more cross-party debate about the
social and economic value of family care work.

If you would like to help us in any

way, please write to Marie on info@
mothersathomematter.co.uk.

email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk