Sir, - My wife and I took a decision shortly after getting married that she would stay home to mind the children as soon as it became financially viable to do so. Firstly, my wife was keen to become a full-time mother and secondly, we both felt that our children would have the best upbringing that way. We both came from families where our mothers were home. Happily, we are now in the position to do this.
The key point for those who wish to stay home and mind their children is financial viability. Financial viability is a purely subjective thing. I know many people who "cannot afford" to stay home and mind their children. Yet they drive two cars, go on at least one foreign holiday each year and pay out exorbitant fees to a creche to mind their children. We do none of these things, but our children get the benefit of my wife's love, care and attention on a full-time basis. She in turn enjoys the experience of seeing them grow and develop before her eyes. They are small for such a short time. We feel obliged to make that time as happy and secure as possible for them.
I know that there are days when my wife wishes she was back in the workplace because children are hard work and she misses the "craic" in the office, but on balance it's the best solution for us as a family. I am not attempting to ram our philosophy down anyone's neck as this approach does not suit every couple, nor is it financially possible for everyone, but it works for us.
The point is this: when both parents work by choice, why should they get any further assistance for doing so? Why should my wife and I be discriminated against because of our choice? We are being financially penalised for exercising freedom of choice - and this against the backdrop of a booming economy! - Yours, etc.,
Colm Murphy, Lakelands Close, Stillorgan, Co Dublin.