Public services are increasingly being framed within a context of ‘choice’ with service users portrayed as consumers of health, education or other services with the assumption that the best and most sustainable way to deliver those services is to improve the expectations and entitlements of those who use them (Brennan & Cass 2012). Childcare is one such area which in the UK is delivered to varying degrees of marketization constructing care as a commodity and its supply driven by consumers making rational choices (Moss & Lewis 2006). Using data from 45 narrative interviews with parents in three areas of Wales, this research uses Bourdieusian theory to suggest a model that challenges the notion of consumer ‘rational choice’ in situations of complex decision-making such as childcare. Taking the simple parental decision of whether to use formal childcare (in daycare centres, for example) or informal childcare (with relatives or friends), it suggests that what is often perceived to be a straight-forward predictable choice based on factors such as economics is in fact a multifaceted accommodation of internal and external variables. Previous research has used an assortment of theoretical and methodological approaches in the examination of why parents make the choices they do in relation to childcare. These reflect a range of positions, from the positivistic slants of economically-focused rational choice analysts (such as Arpino et al. 2010; Blau 2001; Kensinger Rose & Elicker 2008) using meta-data to predict likely behaviour, to researchers that have taken a phenomenological approach to understanding decision-making (eg. Wheelock & Jones 2002; Himmelweit & Sigala 2004). Study of the literature suggests that while external factors such as gender, economics, the labour market or social class clearly play a part in framing choice, internal values and beliefs have an equally important role. This is perhaps why Bourdieu’s (1977) class habitus is recurrently seen as a useful tool for understanding the political relevance of childcare choice. Childcare choice can be seen to engage all three of Bourdieu’s forms of capital. Families’ decisions about whether to use childcare is obviously linked to parental work patterns, and has been seen to be driven by financial necessity based upon their economic capital (Duncan, Irwin 2004). Use of childcare has been shown by some research (Bryson, Brewer et al. 2012) to be affected by the education level of a child’s mother, suggesting that childcare choice is also linked to Bourdieu’s element of Institutionalised cultural capital. Other studies have linked class fractions with the notion of embodied cultural capital (Vincent et al. 2008), while a strand of research highlights the extent to which middle class parents use high levels of social capital born out of formal and informal social networks (Rutter & Evans n.d.). It has also been argued that parents make childcare choices to enhance both cultural and linguistic transmission with the objective of maintaining status within society (Jones & Morris 2009; Hodges 2012). It was clear from analysis of interview data is that a parent’s habitus and the internalised form of the class condition that it indicates, sets the context in which choices are made. While a middle class and working class mother might both choose grandparent care, the justifications for their decisions were expressed very differently. As evident from investigating inter-generational attitudes, the expression of value-based decisions was found to be practiced mainly in middle class families who, although they had to accommodate external factors such as employment and family demands, had greater choice enabling them to implement value-based judgements and utilise their social capital. Working class mothers’ decisions, on the other hand, were defined by restrictions in choice. Some of these were related to cost, others to accessibility of formal care, knowledge of care and broader perceptions of access. Recording the complexity of parental decision-making showed that restricted capital decreased the likelihood of an informed calculation of actual costs and benefits taking place, and prevented the making of a ‘logical’ choice. This finding challenges current market-driven approaches to childcare development supported by demand-side subsidies and highlighting the need for a different approach to childcare policy.