To NOT feel guilty that my kids are in childcare?

Please don't hate yourself. You made a difficult choice in a very difficult situation. You weren't supported by the government or by the dad to do anything differently. I'm sure you made the best decision available to you.

The often used "don't hate the player, hate the game" would fit here.

Fair enough, another thing on my wish-list is much more equitable division of childcare between both parents. But yeah, that's a stretch. Not impossible, though - other countries have managed, why can't we?

Also, many people here arguing in favour of nursery are saying that every family should make their own decisions. I agree, just that those decisions would be different if freed from some of the financial constraints currently put on parents.

Should we be basing policy decisions regarding children's wellbeing on if nursery owners will lose money or if there will be fewer taxes? Or should we be empowering families to make what they consider the best choice for their children.

Your argument against giving parents a freer choice is that women would choose to stay at home longer, leading to more discrimination in the workplace. But then you're basically saying it's better to reduce women's choices and force them back into the workplace.

I did and still do even now my son has grown up. His father dumped us when he was born so I was a single parent. He had to go to a childminder from 6 weeks as that was the only maternity leave then. I basically didn't bring up my own child.
I wish I had spent every one of those years on benefits instead of farming him out. I lost so much of his childhood. I hate myself for it.

You have no reason to feel guilty.

It’s only women who are expected to feel guilty for using childcare - never men.

It’s weird.

But that’s your personal opinion @Itssofunnythat paid parental leave is too short. Many of us feel it’s actually pretty good and well balanced taking into account not just parents, but people who don’t have children and - very importantly - employers. Suppose parents were suddenly paid for 2 years or 3 years to be at home. Suddenly you get someone starting a job, taking 2 years out for a child, popping back to work for a few months, then taking another 2 years off…. Employer can’t appoint someone to the post permanently in the meantime - that limits the pool of applicants. And how many people want their children to have a teacher who’s only their intermittently, taking back to back mat leave of several years? Being taught by stand-ins in the meantime. Or who wants their child receiving medical care from a constantly revolving door of specialists because they’re off for several years?

The govt has a responsibility to consider all sides, not just parents who want to stay at home for 18 months, or 2 years, or 3 years….

Not to mention how much it would disadvantage women in the workplace. Who would want to hire childbearing women if they know that having children would mean the government gives them a bunch of money to enable them to stay at home?

and yes, of course it will be women who will stay at home.

It would be going backwards in that regard.

It isn’t winning from the government POV either: the point is to try to encourage parents to work and therefore to pay taxes.

I think many parents would decide to reduce nursery hours in that context, which would reduce demand and make nursery a bit cheaper. Win-win for everyone.

Except for the nurseries themselves, many of which are struggling to stay afloat as it is. So not win win at all is they go under.

But actually @gattocattivo there's one point where I completely agree with you. Earlier you wrote "parents know their own children and their own context best. Why not trust them to raise their children in a way which might not exactly match someone else’s?"

Currently, the government stops paid parental leave earlier than many other European countries and is spending a lot of money (but still less than is necessary) directly subsidising nursery.

What I would be in favour of is for the government to stop directly funding nurseries and instead to make direct payments to parents irrespective of if they are using nursery or not.

That way, parents could use the extra cash to either help them stay at home with their children or to pay for nursery. They would be the ones to choose.

I think many parents would decide to reduce nursery hours in that context, which would reduce demand and make nursery a bit cheaper. Win-win for everyone.

I think maybe the irony was lost on some people.
my point is that we can all google and find ‘research’ to try to support a particular viewpoint.

Let‘s suppose an amazing piece of research comes out tomorrow indicating that a nursery/ childminder environment is beneficial to babies. Would I start a thread saying look, you’re depriving your baby if you don’t send them to childcare?

of course not. Because I recognise that there are numerous variables and that every individual’s circumstance is unique to them. And that parents do what is best for their own children in their own unique set of circumstances.

I think generally speaking, parents whose children go to nursery really aren’t interested in whether other parents use it or not. It’s the ones who don’t choose to send their children who seem overly invested in parents who do!

Then why did you specifically ask "Can you link to those studies?"

As far as I can tell there is much less research focused on childminders, and even less focused on nannies. From the little I've read (for example this https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-02729-001) childminders (childcare homes) are generally better than nurseries (childcare centres) but can still lead to more cortisol spikes than in children looked after at home by a relative. The quality and consistency of the childminding obviously matters a lot. For nannies, no idea.

It depends.

There is a vocal childminder voice on MN who will disagree but I don’t see being in a childminders home and in a nursery as hugely different. The nursery we use is actually a home (or was before being converted for business purposes) so there aren’t bedrooms or whatever but then children aren’t generally given free access to. Cms home so I don’t see the difference really. I think at a CM the children probably get out of the home more than a nursery, that’s the key difference.

Is it though? Childminders say they provide a home like care. So surely more similar to being at home than being at nursery.

My eldest and youngest both were in nursery. Middle one had a childminder ( neighbour and friend of mine) .DD2 did seem to spend a lot of time being charged about on school/ playgroup runs

Childminder is similar to nursery so the same principle applies.

And what about babies who are having childcare with childminders? They are also in childcare but no one is mentioning them

I agree. Nursery can be beneficial for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

We clearly cant all use Google as what you posted actually supports the opposite argument to the one you’re making 🫣

i said: I wouldn’t use them to argue anything, along with any of the other links posted on this thread. I made it clear that it was posting precisely to illustrate that point!

i made the decision for my children’s childcare based on my children and my circumstances and the chose care that I was supremely happy with (well, had to be as once both kids were there it cost my entire take home pay!)

they loved it, they’ve grown into fabulous adults, that’s what matters.

Have you actually read any of this. It states that this is for older children and actually says childcare below 2 is only midly beneficial for the most disadvanteged.

„The SEED impact at age 5 report marks something of a departure from previous research, providing quite mixed findings. While it suggests there are benefits in terms of better verbal ability when using friends and relatives for care from age 2 to the start of school, it also shows poorer socio-emotional outcomes for children using childminders and group-based provision, particularly when they are in this provision for a large number of hours per week. While some tentative findings suggest some positive outcomes for disadvantaged children when starting provision before age 2 and having moderate amounts per week, it remains to be seen if this will be replicated at age 7.”

You asked for links, I gave them to you, then you snidely say I'm just googling.

When it comes to the ones you shared, your first 2 links specifically looks at children above the age of 2.
The third lumps all children from 0 to 5 years old together, so tells us nothing about the younger years we're discussing.
The last link just focuses on children over 3 years old.

So no, I wouldn't use them to argue in favour of nursery for children under 2.

The nursery we use takes them from 6 weeks. I've never seen a baby that young actually there though.

It was commonplace when my eldest was born as we got 16 weeks maternity leave.

Just to make clear, I’m not suggesting anyone should read all of these (or any others linked on this thread) and make decisions for or against nursery based on narrow pieces of research, some where there’s obvious stakeholder bias and many of which are downright irrelevant.

im just making the point that we can all use google and copy and paste.

parents know their own children and their own context best. Why not trust them to raise their children in a way which might not exactly match someone else’s?

I wish men spent the kind of time women spend worrying about this. It’s getting better with shared parental leave and just expectations changing but I don’t think many fathers are even considering feeling guilty. And very few of them quit their jobs or take a demotion or all the sorts of things that women do regularly to keep the family going. It’s frustrating that we are still here in 2025.

I am an immigrant from the states so think the maternity leave, tax free childcare, flexi working, full time hours often being under 40 per week (my workplace is 35 hours for full time work which is still crazy to me), etc etc is just magical. I think it’s wonderful that society is all working together to take care of children and parents for something around 4-12 months and couldn’t have imagined this before moving.

I also think the care of children is really specific - as we have 0 family here we have never spent a night away from our kids and almost never had them anywhere except with one of us or at nursery for a decade and counting. it’s very different to people who have parents or siblings or any sort of village. It’s different if children come from a house without adequate care. It’s different for children with different challenges. It’s different for children who love socialising and bore easily. There’s no magic number and I think almost any solution can be great if the child has someone who loves them wholeheartedly and is looking after them.

What I know for sure is that it did not work out well for my mother who was home for 15 years. When my parents divorced I was a teenager and despite my dad being a good person, they still couldn’t make his salary stretch to two households. She was decades behind on her career and never caught up. Her pension is awful and she struggles financially. I promised myself I’d do everything I could to ensure I could take care of my kids no matter what - if my husband gets sick or loses his job or leaves us I will pay the bills myself if need be. And i am grateful to live in a system that allows me to literally have it all - a career I enjoy and lots of time with my kids in the evening, on weekends, for weeks and weeks each year when I take holidays and for the entire first year of both their lives. It’s wonderful.