DOL 2007 found 99% of mothers rated “bonding with your baby” as an important or very important PPL consideration, and 70% of PPL-taking women said ideally their baby would be at least 12 months old when leave ended.[1] Yet, on average babies were 6 months old when leave ended.[2] United States data indicates that if mothers take over 12 weeks maternity leave, then the child is more likely to have regular medical check-ups, and to be fully immunised at 18 months old.[3] Of course, the current PPL period (14 weeks) is longer than this – but the data may be suggesting that longer is better in general. The Families Commission infers that one-on-one care up to 12 months of age has increasingly positive effects on children’s health and development.[4] This suggests that some extent of longer leave would assist bonding and care.
Yet, as with family economic wellbeing, infant health has complicated links with PPL. Given the payment cap, parental employment would usually provide more income than PPL. This increased income would have positive effects on children’s health, particularly if the family moves from low- to middle-income. However, removing the primary caregiver from the home to work will increase their stress levels, and decrease time for child care. This suggests that the payment level of PPL needs to be considered, as well as length: there is no point in long PPL, if the low payments lead to lower living standards, which have worse effects on child health than a working caregiver would.
[1] DOL 2007, p. 32.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Berger, L., Hill, J., & Waldfogel, J., 2005. “Maternity Leave, Early Maternal Employment, and Child Outcomes in the US”. The Economic Journal, 115: 29–47.
[4] Families Commission 2007, p. 30-32.