To think nurseries are not safe for young babies

I agree, I think people find admitting this uncomfortable though. Personally I think it has a lot to do with the current issues with older children having so many difficulties and CAMHS being overwhelmed.

Hard disagree. Mine thrived.

You don't need to be sad. I had to leave mine at 5 months, 7 months and 10 months. It was actually better in some respects as they hadn't got to the 'making strange' stage. Mat leave was 18 weeks. I'd already stretched it out as I had to be signed off sick from work because I was breastfeeding and still recovering from c/sections.

They were absolutely fine.

You were indeed fortunate to be able to do that.

Breakfast is at a set time. It will be a set food. They will eat it in a set way. Then nappies will be changed. Then a pre-determined activity will start. Then snack time. Then nap time. Then outside time and so on throughout the day. Nursery operates exactly the same whether your child is there or not and that's because your child's individual needs are not a factor in their decision making. That's institutionalised care.

You don’t appear to understand the difference between institutionalised care and a routine @NuffSaidSam

Tomorrow I have both my children. They’ll have breakfast at around 7. We will get dressed, brush teeth, go out to an activity, come home for lunch, DD will nap after lunch, I will do an activity with DS, DD will wake, they’ll have a snack, free play for a while, then have dinner, a bit of TV, bath and books and stories.

That’s not institutionalised care at all. It’s embarrassing you think it is.

Sorry but why should all nurseries be tired with the same brush just because this sick monster is in the news. Try looking at panorama at the scandals affecting boys in prep schools - they were 10-11. Shall we say schools are dangerous too because of a few sickos?
Who do you want to look after babies then? The flower fairies? Because most 9 month olds I know need caring for, they can't just be left at home while their parents work and not all have a willing GP to hand.

I haven't said having a stay at home parent is best.

I said the evidence shows that one-on-one or small group care is best. That's it. Just that. It's not too broad a statement, it's a statement supported by research into child development.

I think the childcare available should be considerably better than it is. I don't think people should necessarily stop using childcare. We should stop saying nursery is 'good' for babies though because that's untrue.

Just to counteract this, DC1 was at a childminder until 3 and then they went to a nursery until they started school. Whilst the childminder was perfect up until that age, they really would have struggled with the school transition if they had not had that year and a half of nursery beforehand. It got them used to lots of kids, loud noises, different rules etc

Agreed- i think a good childminder is ideal under 3, but preschool type settings are good for 1-2 years before school

And what is wrong with that? Don't we all have set times for things? Especially if you also have older children? So parents are also institutionalising their children by having them in a routine? News to me.

You must have worked in crap nurseries then. Ours let babies sleep as and when they wanted. They did have a sleep time for toddlers and older but it got them into a good routine that we followed at home for consistency.

You could not be more wrong.

the updated EYFS supports those of us that focus on in the moment planning grounded completely in a child's individual interests. Complete free flow play and a holistic approach with things like rolling meal times give children vast amounts of autonomy whilst invitations and provocations around their individual needs and interests, created by hugely passionate, qualified and loving individuals create a learning environment based completely on the needs of the individual.

modern nurseries are very far removed from the little schools of old thank goodness.

I think you're talking absolute rubbish.

I would in no way have wanted my baby to be dragged out strapped in a car seat 3/4 times a day for school dropoffs and pickups. Neither did I want them traipsing round the post office or the supermarket during the time they were being minded. They had me and their dad for that.

Babies don't give a shite whether they are with other babies or a range of ages of children. My almost 2 year old was a nightmare to keep away from my new baby. Poor child spent a lot of time on the kitchen worktop to keep them out of reach!!!

A lot of a baby's day is spent sleeping and eating. Anyone can facilitate that. They aren't just cooped up as you seem to think. Mine were in beautiful bright airy rooms with a regularly changed range of toys, and a beautiful back garden with all manner of things to do. Unless the weather was awful they were out there every day, coats, hats etc on.

WTF does a baby need to "be out in the world"??? Parents do that!! What a load of utter tosh! And surely ALL of our children should be in "childproof rooms" or we are actually negligent!!

My children are adults as I have said. I can't tell between them and their friends who had a SAHP, who went to nursery, who had a childminder, who was "out in the world" (!!!), who was breastfed, who was not, who wasn't toilet trained until they were 11!

The consistency in the early years comes from the parents. Time in childcare is only a part of their life experience. Quite honestly, I don't believe my kids would have got to do the half of the stuff they did in nursery anywhere else, including at home. They were painting from when they were tiny. Mine all loved the beautiful toy kitchen and they had so many bits for it. I couldn't drag mine out some evenings, they were so absorbed. They had a lady come in every week to do singing and dancing with them. All sorts of age appropriate crafting. I don't remember the half of it.

Do you think a cm is doing that when her time is spent running about after other peoples' kids? TBF my last lady did when she had everyone picked up, but the other two absolutely didn't.

9 months old should be able to eat chopped food

I think it's too young. I did baby led weaning and there's no way my DC were eating 'chopped' food at 9 months. They were eating finger food, which meant they were in control of how much they bit off. And babies who are fed puréed food - surely at 9 months, while they might have moved on to more lumpy food, they wouldn't be eating anything chopped.

It's much better for babies to stay in the same room for 12-18 months than have to move every few months - nurseries that understand and prioritise attachment are better for babies.
Personally I see nurseries that disrupt babies every few months as a red flag.

It makes me terribly sad to think of little babies (as in < 6m) in childcare. It was hard enough leaving mine PT when they turned a year old.

Little Genevieve was abused.

i work in a fantastic nursery. We have supernumerary staff. Every single staff member has a paediatric first aid qualification and we have no unqualified staff. no unsupervised sleep. The babies in our nursery are so loved by us all..... they really could not have better nursery care whilst their parents are working.

please don't let the thankfully comparatively tiny number of horrendous incidents and settings spoil what so many of us are very proud of.

I have been in a nursery, yes. I've worked in them.

Nursery care is 'institutionalised' in the sense that it runs to an external timetable that is not based on any individual child's needs.

Breakfast is at a set time. It will be a set food. They will eat it in a set way. Then nappies will be changed. Then a pre-determined activity will start. Then snack time. Then nap time. Then outside time and so on throughout the day. Nursery operates exactly the same whether your child is there or not and that's because your child's individual needs are not a factor in their decision making. That's institutionalised care.

It was nap time in that nursery and that baby wouldn't nap to their schedule.

There is at my DS’ nursery. There’s a baby room, toddler room etc.

DS was in the baby room until he was consistently walking and then settling in sessions for the toddler room started before a full transition.

That room was for children aged 3 months to 2 years. How can that be acceptable? I would have thought there should be a separate room for young babies and then another room for older toddlers.

Why? Mixed age range is more like what a normal mother might have. Its easier to meet different needs than to have 3 babies who all want held - you can be chatting to a toddler while you hold/feed the baby and a preschooler can be playing independently in the same room.

Kate Roughley wasn't a monster, unfortunately.
She was a very experienced, very well thought of nursery practitioner.
I've met lots of women like her in nurseries. See themselves as 'no nonsense'. Disrespectful, irritable attitude towards young children. Won't be manipulated by babies. Influencing the culture of a nursery. Good with parents.

She wasn't a monster, she didn't want to kill this baby or any baby - probably genuinely felt she 'loved babies'.

@NuffSaidSam good nurseries - I don’t mean OFSTED good either - will benefit babies.

That isn’t to say they wouldn’t get the same benefit from their parents, but repeatedly insisting that they are of no benefit at best and harmful at worst is a little provocative.

I really hate it when people use a horrible tragedy to push their own beliefs and narratives. You don’t like nurseries: fine, don’t use one. It isn’t fine to keep repeating over and over that parents are deluded if they think it does their child good.

But perhaps the narrative that having a SAHP is 'good' for small children isn't true either, by the same reasoning. As household income is the biggest indicator of children's outcomes. But that would, of course, be far too broad a statement. Just like the one you made was far too broad a statement.

None of this language moves the conversation on. There are pros and cons to everything, there is nuance to everything, what's right for one child and family may not be right for another.

Putting babies in nursery doesn't benefit the baby. Far from it. It is just to benefit working parents. A baby needs it's primary care giver at that age.

That’s my experience with DS’ nursery too. Low staff turnover, consistent keyworker system, trips out and about etc.

Nothing institutionalised about it.

I'm sure most nurseries are safe.

How they rarely approach the point of key person properly due to staff rotas & shifts, the children rarely have a proper primary caregiver attachment. I don't think they are the best form of childcare at that age - i think childminders are better, preferably ones with a variable age group, eg only 1 baby at a time plus a couple of toddlers/preschool age & some school wraparound. More like a normal family environment.

While I don’t wish to be dismissive of anybody’s pain, given the ages of the children we’re talking about it is unlikely they remember it.

It is better to look at what we do know.

We know that poverty is the biggest cause of misery. It leads directly to ill health: mental and physical. It ties in with issues relating to addiction, substance abuse, crime and familial breakdowns. That’s not to say that everyone who is unhappy is living in poverty of course.

So in short, parents who use childcare are more likely to be employed and they are more likely to be employed in jobs that pay well enough to make working and paying for childcare reasonably lucrative which usually suggests a higher level of education. These are all beneficial to children.

It’s very easy to blame your parents for everything. I did myself. Until I became a parent 😆

Oliver Steeper was being cared for in the Panda room in Jelly Beans Nursery. That room was for children aged 3 months to 2 years. How can that be acceptable? I would have thought there should be a separate room for young babies and then another room for older toddlers.