Lots of people think that babies should be at home with parents - but how does this work in reality?

[Buthowdoesthatwork]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/thirty_days_only/5227945-whats-your-secret-viewpoint

I’ve noticed a lot of people on here, including the above thread, expressing the view that babies and toddlers should be “at home with mum” (they rarely say dad, but that’s another topic) when they are 2, 3, or until they start school. Many people also point out that nurseries are not the best environment for young babies.

Whilst I’m sure that there are many benefits to this proposed set-up, I’m genuinely curious as to how it translates into reality for most people in 2024? Not trying to bait anyone here - but I really do wonder how people are making it work?

I can imagine that it’s possible for families where one parent (again - dad?) is a very high earner, to the extent that the other can stay at home without causing any financial issues. Perhaps it also makes sense if one parent earns very little and/or is in a career where a long break wouldn’t harm longer term employment prospects, such that childcare costs are not offset by the benefits of working.

But, perhaps incorrectly, I imagine that most people fall somewhere in between these examples? For example, I know that I would have great difficulty in returning to the career that I’ve spent over a decade training for if I took three or four years off. I now work part time and childcare consumes a huge proportion of what I earn (shared money, but for the sake of illustration); however, I think it will benefit my children in the longer term if I can retain some of my career and earning potential. I’m not talking about fancy houses and flash cars either, as some critics seem to be suggesting are the drivers for both parents working, but just - maintaining an OK standard of living with heating on and clean clothes and fresh food? We couldn’t afford a nanny, we don’t have family on standby to help - so nursery it is.

I’m prepared to believe that it would be better for my children if I was at home all the time, especially whilst they are little. Or to have a nanny. But those aren’t truly realistic options for us. I don’t really know what the solution is. I’m wondering whether all those who pan nurseries are in a very privileged position, either financially or in terms of support? Or if there are other things I’ve not considered.

I’m honestly not convinced that it is better for children to have a parent at home in the early years. I don’t think it’s worse either. With good quality childcare and good parenting, there’s no difference.

My kids are older now but both attended nursery full time from a young age (no family care available). I know loads of other older kids and young adults who did the same and all have grown up to be happy and healthy and with good relationships with their parents. Looking at the kids/young adults I know, it’s impossible to say who stayed at home and who went to childcare.

Because we persevered with our careers when the kids were younger, we are now in the fortunate position of being financially secure and having great work flexibility now. Personally I think this is more valuable with teenagers than being at home all the time with babies and toddlers.

It doesn't and I think that that is the issue. I don't believe most of the women on that thread are judging, but more pissed off that they cannot do something which in many countries is considered the normal thing to do. Society expects women to do 'everything' and views children as an inconvenience. The expectation of women is way too high so everyone is burning out and DC are suffering. One little thing eg a DC needing a week sickness off from nursery tips the balance. And the DC generally are the ones that suffer as Mum can't drop work to be there for DC so DC is passed from pillar to post for that week. Society expects that men have a woman in the background sorting everything so a large majority of employers are inflexible with men.

It doesn't work in reality.
We are a middle income family (well I think). Don't struggle but aren't rolling in money. But can not afford to live on my DH salary alone.
I would love to stay at home with my children until they start school but it is practically impossible.
Taking 5 years off would put me back at the bottom of the ladder in my career that I have worked hard for before having children.

All our friends are the same to differing degrees but ultimately no one can afford to be at home for 5 years before the children start school then be able to slip back into their career.

I think it's better for them to not be in nursery until they're 3, and if not with a primary caregiver such as a nanny.

However I also think that's highly unrealistic for most families unless v well off (nanny) or lowish income so childcare costs more than working.

When I was young nearly everyone in my area had a parent at home. It was just the norm.

In one area I've lived in nearly everyone went back to work at a year.

I've moved to a different non city area and it feels like most people are as t toddler groups still at 2/3 and most kids have a parent at the school gate.

For many reasons I ended up at home for the first few years. It was brilliant for the child and the bond and j was "lucky" in some ways to do so and am so pleased I did on one level.

However it's come at such a huge cost income and work wise. It's hard reinventing your career as an older person.

I didn't have a choice at the time but with the cost of living what it is I would vote part time and keep the career as advice for most people if possible.

You have a wealthy husband who can support you. Then in a few years time when he shags his secretary you come onto MN who tell you to LTB and then berate you for having sacrificed your career. You can’t win on MN!

And it doesn't get easier once they start school. Look at UC, you must work 30 hours once your child turns 3. But your DC is only provided with 30 hours of childcare. So you must teleport from work to pick your DC up immediately. This change is mostly aimed as single parents. We need more criminalisation of child abandonment so men are forced to help raise the DC they choose to create. Then it would be a more level playing field for women. But that's kind of off topic I know.

Yep.

I wouldn't have had children if I didn't have substantial family support plus cheap housing so we didn't have to do 2 full time jobs.

It's funny as the"can't afford to" is both ways. Those with a career to maintain can't afford to take time off.

Those on low incomes say they can't afford to work or it's not worth it.

I don’t think it. Money aside, I would hate it. I would be bored, frustrated, under stimulated and lacking in worth, and how is that good for children to be around.

I believe that the majority of children are better off at home with a parent until 3/4, at least most of the time.
i was able to do this because I had my children starting from mid 1990’s.
back then we could afford a small house on a single graduate salary - just.
i agree it would be impossible now, mainly due to the rise in house prices.. I find that really sad. The government spend lots on subsidising childcare, but don’t offer any financial support for parents to go part time or stay at home.
i work with quite a few young adults (therapist) who present with some attachment difficulties which seem to be potentially from intensive and early childcare.

It doesn’t. That’s why it’s a secret viewpoint, no one wants to be called unrealistic.

I chose to work because I am a grown adult who is not reliant on another adult and I am showing my child to take responsibility for themself and being an adult means acting like one

Men have permission to work so why can't women? Why are women's only use is breeding and caring?

What about the experience of people whose parents both worked from the off? There's must be some people here who can share their views?

I think school is harder as you have to contend with holidays and they seem to have so many drop ins etc that shorten the already short working day. This week for example we have nativity (which I know is only once a year) but I have two kids and so two nativities. Then there’s anti bullying workshops, emotional health workshops. All start around 1.45-2 so that’s an extra couple
of hours to find. Holiday clubs are good in my area but the hours are shorter than school plus wraparound care.

Indeed.

Plus I didn’t stop having an independent professional existence and a desire to do work I find worthwhile and enjoyable just because I had a child, any more than DH did. We could absolutely have lived comfortably on DH’s salary but it would have have occurred to either of us to think on that way. Our only returning to work conversations were about ways in which we could arrange our work schedules around childminder drop offs and pick ups. Because we both had a child.

I don't believe my child would have been better at home with me as a toddler. I know I could have taken him out to groups but in general we'd have been just us at home. If we'd lived in a multi-generational household or had lots of siblings or lived in some kind of commune then yes I do think being home would be good for him as a toddler and preschooler but not the way we live now. I think that human babies are evolved for living in family groups with other children. (Nursery is equally unnatural with children grouped by age, but a mix of nursery and home is as close as I could get to what I think is optimum).

my children seem to really benefit from being at pre school. They are 4 and 2, particularly the 2 year old girl absolutely loves it. They are in a class of 10-15 each, so not huge. It is 9am to 15.45 and I think this is a massive point to be made. 10-12 hours in childcare a day is likely not great.

I don't think mine would be better off at home that at term time only 6 hours per day care to meet other kids, have loads of varied experiences, forest school weekly etc. I don't think I'd consistently give them nearly as much attention and stimulation.

I work full time from home, have wrap around for when I need it and see them when they get home or pick them up. It's a good balance but we are pretty lucky to be able to do it this way.

I don't think that there has been any time in history where young children have solely been looked after by their parents. You used to have relatives and neighbours who would help and look out for your kids whilst you were working. Now we don't have that so use formal childcare instead.

I think just caring for your children 24/7 would have a rather detrimental effect on most people's mental health. We need to be able to engage our brain. If you are used to doing complex accounting and now your only conversation is 'look at that cat. It goes meow' and similar, it's hard not to feel yourself mentally wasting away.

I could afford to be at home and have toyed with the idea for so long my youngest is now only 9 months from starting school so have ran out of time. Me and DH share finances and he’s never been an arse about what I spend, I manage the household finances and so I haven’t chosen to work because he’d otherwise withhold money (like many men seem to do).

I’ve worked because I have a decent career I worked bloody hard for and whilst I love my DH, I am always conscious you never know what’s around the corner.

I have always had a deep sense of needing to look after myself AND if DH was incapacitated being able to pick up the tab. We could afford to live off one salary but makes sense to me to hedge our bets. We both work in lucrative but volatile sectors.

Yeah it also depends what you'd be doing instead. There are jobs that are no more brain engaging than meow cat, and that might be much less pleasant.

I agree with this. Having done my family tree for years, the census regularly shows the women of the house with a job alongside sometimes many children. Market gardening, charring, glove making etc. I would imagine there was help from relatives and the older children looking after the little ones. It was not until the 1939 census where you see married women listed as "domestic duties". The idea that working class women would sit at home with only 1 or 2 children is comparatively recent and probably even more recent that the kids would have been the main focus of activity vs running a house without modern appliances, and shopping without big supermarkets etc.

I was the main wage earner when dd was born so I went back to work when she was 6 months old. By the point she was older I had a lot more flexibility in my working hours, and of course more money, which was a huge help during the teenage years. I think older kids need "you" in a way little ones don't as long as they are being cared for in a supportive environment.

Thinking it’s the best thing and knowing it’s not actually realistic are two different things though.

I think it’s best that children are home with a parent (not necessarily mum) and we juggled a lot to make that work when they were little. DH worked permanent early shifts 4a-1p and I worked 2p-10p or 6p-2a. We had very little family support, but luckily we both had good employers who were ok with time off if the kids were ill, albeit unpaid.

It was bloody hard work for a long time but with both of us in minimum wage jobs, we couldn’t afford childcare so we made it work.

My sons is in nursery at 2, and he's thriving. My daughter, who's 1 in 2 weeks, will be with a childminder until I get her a place in nursery

Yes, I believe in a society where there's a focus on childcare and other caring roles, where they're respected and celebrated. I'd want fathers as well as mothers to have much more time available to be with their children, also for others, not just parents, to have time and flexibility for caring roles and for their own wellbeing. Also, a sense of shared responsibility and community. It really isn't natural or healthy to put all the responsibility of childrearing on parents alone (which often falls to being on mothers alone or mostly alone).
Nurseries have taken over the shared family and community childcare of the past, so perhaps they're not necessarily a bad thing apart from low pay for staff and the prohibitively high fees. I think there should always be as much flexibility and choice as possible, though.