To NOT feel guilty that my kids are in childcare?

Wait until they are in school and then potentially move schools? I wouldn't want to do that unless absolutely necessary.

We bought this house knowing it has good schools in hopes that we won't have to move for a long time so our children can stay nice and settled. Moving somewhere with good schools comes at a price and is about thinking about what you want your child's school experience to be like and nothing to do with having everything 'now'.

Lots of arguments for why it’s better to move before kids/when they’re small. Sure- it’s almost always nicer to have more space but that’s not my point. My point is, it’s doable to have a smaller space when they’re little. It’s about priorities. If someone really wants to be present in their children’s life when they’re little, they will make it work. In my experience, kids always want to play where you are so we all end up in one room (I.e. lounge) and the bedrooms are hardly used.

P.S. If you’re already in a studio flat and still have to work to pay the mortgage then obviously that doesn’t apply.

It's better to move before your kids start school so that you're in catchment for the school you want/don't have to move schools

My children share a bedroom but I kind of wish we had moved before we had the kids. It would have been so much easier. Plus when you move when they are older you have less money available because they cost more. I don't see what the appeal is if a parent is looking after children at home in a house that is far too small for their needs. It just isn't fun. Childcare also isn't a new concept. There were nurseries in WWII.

But they could wait till the kids are in school before upscaling?

We don't have to have everything right now - although we are under a lot of pressure to believe that is the case.

Despite the constant discourse about 'wellbeing' (ie mental health, commodified) and much more awareness of gentle parenting etc - we're in absolute denial about the fundamental needs of babies and small children.

No amount of gentle parenting is going to make up for the internalised anxiety created by industrialised childcare - and the related impact on attachment - in the early stages of development.

I call that being sensible?

I don't completely understand sorry - but if you mean the parents are sharing care and both working part time on a reduced income then that's what I'm suggesting is optimal.

If you mean that both parents absolutely have to work full time and share care on top of that to afford the minimum, then yes, that's really tough and you've got to do what you've got to do.

What you call social development could also be viewed as 'coping skills' - learned responses to anxiety and sadness. Something that babies and toddlers shouldn't have needed to develop yet. Babies and toddlers are not office workers.

That too.

I have 3 under 3 and can't imagine moving house with them. No thanks. 😂

Mine is older now but he went to nursery from just before he turned 1. Three days a week as DH and I both managed to negotiate a flexible 4 day working week with our employers - we were very lucky.

During Covid, he had three months at home with us. Then went back in. I didn’t feel guilty.
I don’t think society/family life is set up for the optimum ‘it takes a village’ so I do think Nursery (in as small a dose as you can manage) is a good thing for them.

The worst part about childcare IMO is the cost of it! We were lucky that it was financially worth it for both of us to work but I know many that couldn’t do that and had to quit working.

It's also much easier to move before you have a baby than afterwards (I have moved house with two under 4 and I do not recommend)

Babies might not take up much space but they don't stay babies for long.

Both of mine loved nursery and I have zero regrets. Sure, they had blips but doesn’t anybody with anything. Their social development was far ahead of kids that didn’t go as were many other skills. Far more variety of things to do as well.

How does that work then in the case where both parents do equal care?

Example- a lot of people I know upsize just before they have a baby or once baby is born because they think they need more space (babies don’t take up that much space). The mortgage then obviously goes up and they both need to go back to work.

Cutting and pasting from a post of mine earlier this year:

Research has always shown that babies need a secure attachment with one consistent care-giver - not chaotic, crowded, loud environments where staff turnover is high. We know that the standard of 'industrial' - sorry, but that's what it is, and needs to be to sustain this model - childcare is exceptionally low when compared to many other developed countries. I (genuinely, and not just to enrage or upset people) think we will see the results in the next decade and it won't be good either for individual children or for society as a whole.

It's a massive social experiment and a massive con. Capitalism needs us to buy, on and on and on, and it will always adapt and coopt and shift in order to keep consumption increasing. Thus it's successfully convinced us that a certain standard of living is the minimum we deserve - and that without certain objects and services we're not 'living'. So families work full pelt to afford this lifestyle - and pay out even more in convenience foods and extra services in order to make family life even vaguely possible.

It's true that housing costs make it harder to survive one one income. But my honest belief is that, with serious cutbacks in spending, it would be possible for many families to survive for a few years on one or 1.5 incomes.
What should have happened is that men should have been forced/enabled to take half the load - so both couples go part-time and care is split between them. That's child-centred, but also equality-focused.

I know lots will disagree, but what we have is horrible.Thirty odd years ago it was very much not the norm, and I don't think anyone - women, men, and most of all babies and toddlers - has benefitted.

They definitely keep things interesting. 😂

You have your hands full then @SouthLondonMum22

Both sets of Grandparents will have them for sleepovers occasionally. DH's parents more than mine because they are more local. They love having them and are always asking to have them.

DS is 2 and twin DD's have just turned 1.

I think some people do like more time with their kids than others. And different people need more time on their own than others.

I don't think that's a big deal though, I don't think women should feel bad about not wanting to be with their children 24/7.

I am an introvert with extroverted children and I do find them overwhelming sometimes. I don't feel guilty about using high quality childcare. I do feel guilty when I don't get enough time to myself and start being snappy with the kids.

Aren't your kids babies though @SouthLondonMum22 ? By 'sleepovers' do you mean handing them to your mum?

My mum wouldn't have had our kids when they were babies and I wouldn't have asked her to.

If you look back, I was actually responding to pp who was acting like it was strange for a mother to want to be away from her kids which is why I joked that maybe I evolved incorrectly. I also never called anyone a martyr.

Mine are in childcare because I work but since DH and I flex our hours, they aren't actually in childcare for super long days.

Bedtime isn't downtime for me because I'm still ''on'' and can't truly relax which is where sleepovers come in handy.

Not guilty at all, she went to nursery at 10 months old, couldn’t have any longer off work, she loved nursery! Was always so happy there and made lovely friends she still has now at age 8. Maybe part of it was luck, she was a chilled child and the nursery was great.
She also loves her wrap around care and holiday clubs now.