Mrs Ill-informed here.
Ill-informed and I discussed what i would do when our baby was born and i was looking forward to staying at home with our 2 young children.
We discussed me doing a bit of childminding which i had and still have my resavations about. (main issuse is the huge amount of paper work).
The pre school job has come a year too early but i feel i can not let the opportunity pass as it has great benefits for the future e.g. term time only. The job is only 2 mornings a week and when i was offered the job i was disapointed by Ill-informeds negative response. I now realise its too much for my mother in law to care for the baby so suggested a childminder or Ill-informed taking time off, neither went down very well. To keep everyone happy i decided to split the care between a childminder one morning and my mother in law the other. So this means i get to keep the job and the baby is only in childcare for one morning.
I have checked if we can get any help with childcare costs and we dont unless i work over 16 hours.
The baby's feeding issues is getting eaiser as she now has 3 meals a day and will take a little water from a beaker.
I have been upset that i have not had the support or understanding form the person i thought would be pleased that i had got a job i really enjoy and that will fit in with family life once our children are at school.
I hope some of the comments have made ill-informed think and made me realise that its often me who has to try to deal with any issues/problems that arise.
It sounds to me as though Mr ill informed was misunderstanding or assuming that what you wanted to do was home-based child-minding. Whereas you only ever saw that as a temporary stop-gap for a year or so till the children were slightly older and you could get the kind of ideal job you describe, term-time only, fitting in with the children and family needs.
It seems as though Mr ill informed as been assuming that home-based childminding can be lucrative and that that was therefore something to be working towards, and that this part time work (while ideal in a you find it enjoyable sense) was the temporary stop gap while you got the paperwork and accreditation sorted for the long term plan to do childminding.
Am I summarising this wrongly?
MrII thinks part-time job is temporary stop gap, long term plan is home childminding, which he seems to think is lucrative, even though having two children reduces the number of other children that can be minded, and it's expensive in terms of equipment, insurance, accreditation costs, and time consuming in terms of assessments and paperwork.
MrsII thinks long term plan is to get a salaried job is to get a job that fits in with raising children, childminding at home was an idea for a temporary stop gap till that happened, but up popped an opportunity sooner than expected.
Tbh, the way I read it from what MrII was saying was that it was more hours and more inconvenient to accommodate than just two mornings per week. If it was five mornings per week, or three days per week or something, I could understand how it might be a struggle to juggle the childcare needs between mother-in-law, MrII and childminder.
Given that MrII himself admits that he sometimes has days off, I do think it's appalling that he can't commit to looking after his own children at least one morning a week, if not both. Too often, some men see assuming their share of childcare responsibilities as doing a favour, as 'baby sitting' their own children, *for* their wife or partner, as opposed to something they should be doing in any event.
What's stopping MrII from saying to clients who ask him to landscape their gardens or do other groundwork something along the lines of:
Actually, this job will take about three days labour. I'm not available next week, but I can do it the week after. I can start on Monday, but I'm not available on Tuesday mornings as I have a regular gig, so I can put in an extra hour or two on Monday afternoon, and stay later on Tuesday and Wednesday, so that the job's still finished by end of Wednesday.
He doesn't need to tell them what the 'regular gig' on Tuesday mornings is, if he doesn't want to, he can lead them to believe it's a contract for regular maintenance of grounds or a garden, or alternatively he can actually say, I'm being a responsible parent and assuming some of the childcare while my wonderful wife goes out to do her part-time job, because we're partner-parents.
I don't get why MrII is so insistent that he *can't* do any childcare, when it's only two mornings a week, and he himself admits that the work is sometimes a bit flexible, some days off here and there, so why can't he improve his negotiation skills, and better negotiate with clients his availability? Why is it all about MrsII *having* to compromise because MrII *refuses* to?
Seriously, MrII, raising your children is your job as well as MrsII's. So to use a horrible cliche, step up to the plate, mate!
mr feyr and i work almost opposite shifts to keep childcare costs to a minimum. i do more childcare day to day as a) i have more patience, b) i'm more organised.and c) he also works 2 shifts a week in a local pub. i do 1 extra shift, and 3 night oncalls , so bring in slightly more money as i am also on a higher grade at work than him. but he does however do a good share, and is happy for me to have the occasional night out. 
