To think nurseries are not safe for young babies

Early child development research has shown us that the 0-5 years are crucial in the social, emotional and cognitive development of children, and that the best way for that development to be optimised, and full potential to be recognised, is through a caregiver who can provide loving, nurturing care; someone whom a child can securely bond with, and attach to, and someone who is going to be a constant presence in that child’s day-to-day life. (Not someone who is motivated to provide care for money, and who may be there on Friday, but gone on Monday). Who is best suited to provide that care? A primary caregiver who loves the child, and has a vested interest in that child; that primary caregiver is almost always someone that has a biological link to that child (mother, father, grandmother, etc.), and is someone who has become attuned to the needs of that child because they’ve been primarily looking after them. Especially with babies and toddlers, no nursery worker is going to spend hours walking around with a baby if they’ve got colic or reflux trying to soothe them; or going to spend ages googling to find the best remedy to soothe irritated gums for a teething toddler; or going to give spontaneous hugs and kisses like a parent/grandparent would. They don’t have the time, the biological link or the vested interest, to do so.

I'm due to be sending my 1 year old to nursery next month and am not at all happy about it since I've heard about the two young babies who have died in nursery care - really seriously considering my options.

On the subject of men staying at home, I would be happy to return to work if my DH stayed at home with DS until he was 2. I've asked him several times during the past year, particularly as we struggled to find childcare. He has always said no, despite not being happy at work.

The talk of returning to the one-income model for families was never a reality for all families at any point in history. It may have been a reality for middle class families but working class women have always worked. I grew up in a working class background and my mother and my grandmothers always needed to work. My paternal grandmother started having children in the 50s and she continued to work in a shoe factory when her children were growing up. What is relatively new is the use of third party childcare such as nurseries.

@Grammarnut I don’t disagree with what you’re saying but think there are a few issues.

Very few people breastfeed (I think it’s 6% that get to 6m - I fed mine until 8m and the other 2 years so I am not biased against breastfeeding here - I just know I was in the minority). We know that babies aren’t disadvantaged by being looked after by Dad rather than Mum, so taking breastfeeding out the equation shared leave would be a great way of helping men become equal carers allowing women to have equal careers.

Also divorce rates are very high, I am using married couples as that’s where we have data. I am sure separation of non married couples is also high. I personally think against that back drop it’s really dangerous to have most Mothers dependent on Fathers for income. We also know how difficult it is to enforce CMS which illustrates perfectly why.

I really think we need to move towards better quality childcare and seeing the value in childcare so it’s not just woman’s work. It should be parents work.

I wasn't thinking of parental leave. I was thinking of returning to the one-income model of families, where one partner is at home full-time. I am not sure that most women want to hand over half of their maternity leave to their DPs, and if they are breastfeeding that would not work, anyway as men cannot breastfeed babies! Those women who want to stay at home either full or part-time, want themselves to be the person staying at home. They have expressed the idea that being at home, doing things in the community etc is more rewarding and satisfying than a job - bear in mind most of us do boring jobs, we are not high-flying surgeons or barristers etc. I feel for men, who I consider are on the work-treadmill all their lives and we do need to find other ways of living that allow people to find satisfaction in their lives, rather than assuming it only comes from a paying job. Most people work because they need the money, not because they want to work. Freedom is bought by earning enough to to be free - which generally means, for most of us, escape from the treadmill. I can see perfectly well that women find rearing their children, working in the community, perhaps working from home on something that is a passion, would prefer not to be shoved into work and their children into nurseries because these things are the only things society values. I find the implication that looking after children etc is an unenjoyable chore (so men should have to leave their wonderful work-life to take part in it) a little joyless. Doubtless, many men would like to stay at home with the children, but it is not feasible with small babies. We have to battle against women being penalised for taking time off to have children, not make men do some of it and share the general disapprobation of taking time off for children - the current situation is arse-forwards: nothing we do is worth anything if we do not continue our culture by having children.

I think parents get criticised left right and centre for various decisions, and it is worth remembering that a lot of the time you are doing the right thing and making a good choice. Some nurseries can be a good environment for very young children. In our case, the choice to send our DC to this particular nursery, was certainly preferable to putting us into financial dire straits with all the consequences that come with this. We have recently been able to move house into an area with better secondary schools, for instance. I feel confident that this will have a very significant positive impact for them in future.

Yh I agree - I think reading these threads it's just pages and pages of projection from mostly mums who are all making the best choices and decisions they can but feel unsure about them for a multitude of reasons. Then it descends into fucking sniping and it's depressing.

The article posted earlier in the thread is a really interesting nuanced look at the evidence - it was by no means a slam dunk that nursery or being at home is 'better' but a good look at the different factors and variables and the potential outcomes of putting your kids in nursery by number of hours and their age.

I think it's hard, parenting is the great unknown because your kids are a mystery your won't know the answer to until they are grown up. I'm a SAHM with my younger daughter ATM - will she appreciate it? Look back on this time fondly? Or will she resent me for not earning and setting a bad example for women? No idea! I've not met her as an adult yet and she'll have her own distinct ideas formed by my parenting but also outside influences from peers and society. Can't control it, but I'm doing what I feel is best for her at this time.

The key thing, whether we work or stay at home, is how we safeguard our relationships with our kids - do we listen to them? Are we wise enough to know when to help them and when to step back and let them work it out themselves? Are we open to acknowledging our failures and doing better next time? It's bloody hard, but that's the core no matter how your structure your family.

Absolutely. I wish I had the mental resilience to have stayed at home with a toddler and baby. But I didn’t. I also wish I didn’t care so
much about my career and my independence as a woman, but again I do and I always think if DH drops dead how
will I feed my family if I SAH. That’s just my thought process.

So I did what’s best - admitting that was the best of the choices I had rather than optimal all round is ok.

Why would it make you sad?! This is the whole point I’m trying to make!!! Why should you be sad about a woman reading a thread wondering if she’s doing right by her kid? Wondering if she’s making the best choice? Looking at the available evidence on the different settings and weighing up her options given her personal circumstances and coming to a choice about the best (or least bad) option? Isn’t that just being a responsible parent?

Why do we all have to have our choices constantly validated as being the absolute ideal for our children? Why isn’t it enough that we do the best we can in the circumstances we are placed? If we can admit that nursery’s are not ideal for children under 36 mths, we can perhaps work to change the circumstances wherein many (maybe most) women feel that that is the least bad option open to them.

Agree - it’s an example of poor communication in the nursery. Yes it might have been fine for ALL the other children but for whatever reason it wasn’t ok for that child and the parents had communicated that.

And I’d add to the point that policy doesn’t rely on an evidence base in the case of children. It’s even worse than that… we are not even doing the research. There’s a dearth of high quality empirical research on children, especially as we move through the yrs. Very little longitudinal research. We often don’t disaggregate the data (make children and female children). Makes you wonder…

It makes me sad that some parents (mothers most likely) could be reading this thread and questioning if they are doing the right thing by going back to work and using a nursery.

Literally just last week my 6 year old son walked past his nursery and sighed 'I loved it there'. He runs up and hugs any nursery staff he sees in the street. His key worker from when he was 10 months to 2 years made him a hand made scrap book with photos of him at nursery with thoughtful captions when he moved into the next room. He got so many hugs during the day, napped peacefully, ate a multitude of healthy foods he would have refused at home, and hung out with some kids who are now in his class at school. Many of the same staff are still there. They were never strangers and they very much cared for him. They should be paid better and valued more highly.

“The choking incident seems to be a terrible accident. Both my babies were eating chopped food at that age.”

No; it’s another example of a poorly run nursery.

Staff were told this child could not chew and needed purées. The parents were assured this would happen. Staff repeatedly failed to give purées.
A significant number of staff had lapsed first aid qualifications. Parents had been told all staff were fully qualified in first aid.

This is exactly it! I’ve done loads of things that are less than ideal w my kid. I ve negotiated situations where the best decision would still mean compromise - the choice is between bad and not great. But the difference is I can be transparent with myself about it. Sometimes I think with our kids… it’s like the responsibility to get it right is so heavy that we feel the need to paint this idealised picture.

In reality, a ten month old doesn’t need ‘social interaction’ and their increase in cortisol is worrying. The indications are that these settings are not ideal. They might be the ‘not good’ decision, when the only other alternative is ‘bad’ (maternal
maternal health, economic hardship etc).

I think if we have any hope of working towards a better alternative we have to admit that our children would be better off in other settings. That last meta analysis had some really interesting discussion points (though admittedly hard to get through the academic jargon).

Also children aren’t all even. I never knew my first baby was a HARD baby until I had my second, I desperately needed help with my first and didn’t recognise actually how hard he was. I was really keen to get back to work.

My second is an angel, life goes on like normal with him in tow. Things that felt impossible with my first, until he was nearer 3, are just easy. It’s not the order they were born, it’s their temperaments.

Then you have additional needs etc. It’s just luck of the draw.

You’re not wrong with your last paragraph, people read what they want to.

IMO it’s absolutely fine to assess, weigh it up and still decide to use childcare etc. It might be best for your family on balance. I went PT, I thought carefully and decided that was best for me and my family so both mine went to nursery 3 days from 1+ BUT I still recognise the downsides.

I don't think children have evolved significantly since the 80s and 90s...

Another meta analysis that shows findings are replicated and robust (in general).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200622001429

Its a complicated picture - very few longitudinal studies done to understand the effect of heightened cortisol so perhaps babies being stressed isn’t impactful across the life course. But the evidence does suggest daycare settings heighten cortisol in babies. And that, in my opinion, is not ideal!

The one I linked to is a meta analysis.

I only see links to research done in the 80s and 90s and probably in the US. Is it the best you can do?

I’m not sure about safety. And I can completely understand the need to use nursery’s… but they are FAR from ideal for babies.

The research on cortisol levels indicates that the younger the baby, the less ideal a nursery is for their stress levels.

There’s some interesting research on the babies ‘larger ecology’ and cortisol. My reading of this is that if the home is high stress, then a nursery setting will actually moderate cortisol levels, but if home is typical, then nursery will heighten cortisol.

I had to work! We needed to use childcare (a childminder/nanny) but I know my baby would have been happier/less stressed w me. I get the need for nursery’s/childcare in general, but the ‘my baby thrives at nursery’ is bs and I think we all basically know it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0885200606000421

A woman I knew who worked in a nursery once told me that the staff where she worked were only 'nice' to babies that they knew personally. Made me feel so uneasy.

No one is making fun of 0-5 development. People are just saying that children can be just fine in a nursery setting too.
Look, if you want to stay at home for YOUR child then you do just that. Don’t pat yourself on the back and think your choice is better or think that anyone will be able to pull your child out of a line up in 15 years time as someone who obviously had a SAHM.

I grew up in a Scandinavian country where children have been in childcare for generations. I went to nursery myself 100 years ago. It’s not a society full of neglected children!

This last paragraph you have written is spot on and what I have been trying to say on this thread.
Our capitalist society needs new mothers to work. Houses and food are so expensive and everyone is intensely encouraged from a very young age to buy ‘stuff’ So many things set up now particularly families to spend lots of money on. 30/40 years ago there was so much less and people expected less generally. Old hand me downs for clothes, home made food rather than pre made stuff and walks in free places or a visit to a friends / family for weekend / school holidays were all the norm.
I honestly find it worrying and baffling that posters are minimising and making fun of the importance of 0-5 development. Just shows a real ignorance of how vital this age actually is.

The choking incident seems to be a terrible accident. Both my babies were eating chopped food at that age.
The other one is awful and I'm so glad that woman has been found guilty. But she is one in millions of nursery practitioners. There will always be that one doctor, teacher, nurse, carer, mother, father.... Doesn't mean that your child isn't safe at the doctors, hospital, school, home.
I've worked in a nursery for 30 years. Never have I seen babies treated cruelly and, if I did, I would report it. I don't really agree with children attending nursery every single day full time but a few days a week can be very beneficial for children. The babies in our baby room are very happy.