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.

There’s a woman in Instagram who does a whole account kind of based on this - she talks a lot about hunter gatherer societies and the evidence from those that child care is not solely carried out by mothers from an ‘evolutionary’ perspective. She’s called elena bridgers. She American so some of it is specific to a US context, where everything juts seems more intense, and doesn’t always totally ring true for the UK but it’s often interesting.

Apologies. Just trying to summarise in the title - I suppose more detail in the full post.

When mine were small (under 2.5 ish) I was at home with them two days, DH was with them one day, and my parents had them two days.

At 2.5 ish, they went to preschool for increasing amounts of time, by the time they were 4 they were at preschool something like two longer days and two mornings a week - and one day with me. By then DH was working 5 days, I was working four days, and my parents were having them two afternoons.

We moved from where we were living to where my parents live, so that it would be possible.

I’m sorry that you’ve faced this! We all need to stop judging one another.

I'd be interested in reading any studies on this - are there any?
It's also my understanding that nursery staff have to have a basic level of training that includes at least some understanding of child psychology, and when in work are bound to rules and governance - whereas literally anyone can have sex and be a parent, or be a family member offering to do childcare - obviously nursery workers can be underpaid and apathetic, but i don't really understand why a family member or a mum is automatically going to be better for the child's emotional wellbeing in a lot of cases.

I want to challenge this idea that being 100% home until 2 is 100% better. I really don't think it is. It's not worse, for a lot of families, but there isn't good evidence that it's better.

Being at home without a "village" is really unnatural. And no, toddler groups are not a substitute.

I always knew I wanted to be a SAHP but I’ve always been a very maternal person - I would have worked in childcare but the money always put me off.

When I knew I wanted to settle down (late twenties) I was looking for a man who had a similar mindset to me. My husband is extremely family oriented, selfless, kind, hardworking but we’re both the kind of people that don’t care about brands/keeping up with the Jones’s, we both appreciate the small things in life.

I was working in the corporate world which I always knew wouldn’t be compatible with the family life but it did pay quite well. We own outright through inheritance/combining two houses into one. Lots of people thought we were crazy getting an ex council fixer upper but whilst it’s not the most atheistically pleasing we could see bringing up a few kids in it. We could see where the swings would go or where the hockey sticks would live.

Living off one salary especially with the COL means there’s lots of things we don’t do. I don’t go out for cocktails with the girls or go to festivals. We have to be savvy with money and budget. But this is the lifestyle we wanted and feel very thankful for what we have.

The best quality available ones that I found showed no difference in outcomes, providing the nursery was good quality ( a lot is from the US, where regulation seems variable ).

I was born in the 60's when many women were expected to give up careers on marriage let alone when having a baby.

My mother was a theatre sister and very good at her job. She gave up work when I was born but took that time to take maths O level and maths A level and then an Open University degree in maths. When I was about 7 she got a job as a math teacher. A few years later she went back to work as a nurse. After a few more years of that she got a job with London University as a computer operator (this was in the mid 80's) not having had much experience with computers before, and retired from that job some 10 years later.

She made it work by retraining for a different career while she was a SAHM. If I had had any sense I would have done the same.

I loved being able to be with my children for the years before they went to school - but we are in Australia and I happened to fall in with a group of women who didn’t work, or worked part time, so we spent a lot of time together doing nice things like going to the beach, the pool or playgroup.
Saying that, I took bringing them up as my job - we didn’t really watch TV, I was very engaged, played and read with them, took them to music groups and wasn’t bored or resentful. I can imagine though that if I was in a different set of circumstances things would have been different - I was lucky that we were able to buy a house on one salary (11 years ago) and had the resources to enjoy it.

When they started school I went back to work part time and now they’re teens this works really well as they have to fend for themselves sometimes but I also still have plenty of time for them to take them to sports and have those nice after school chats.

It is very hard for families these days though. Part of why we moved from London to Aus 18 years ago was the realisation that we would need two salaries to buy a house but we also wanted a family and just couldn’t make the sums work in London - yet our jobs were there so it wasn’t a case of being able to move. At the time in Sydney it was still perfectly possible to buy a nice home in a decent area on one good salary - I’m not sure that’s the case anymore though and personally I think communities are worse off for that.

Being parents with careers doesn’t mean we’re not family oriented, maternal/paternal. DH and I definitely are and our DT’s are our greatest achievement. However our careers are also very important and have benefited DT’s by being able to provide a high quality nursery and education. Opportunities to participate in many out of school activities and travel on a regular basis. We don’t have to budget.

This sounds great. As per my OP, though, it wouldn’t be realistic for most families. For example - I’d happily move to make childcare easier, but one set of grandparents work full time and would, quite reasonably, not want to commit to such regular childcare. The other side are too frail to be able to provide any physical help.

Likewise, to people saying that both parents cut down hours at work to avoid time in childcare. That also sounds like a great set up for the individual family, but can’t really be extrapolated as many couldn’t absorb the loss in earnings.

And I agree with you on the family thing. There's this line on mumsnet that's always trotted out about grandparent care being preferable to nursery. I think in the real world, that's notcl always true - great when it works well, but on here, can come with a huge raft of issues, when it's viable at all

I'm one of the 'lucky' few that didn't need to work as dh's salary was plenty for us to live on alone. I was a sahm for nearly 8 years. Looking back, I would have gone back to work sooner for my own sanity. I've been back working PT for a couple of years now and couldn't be happier. But then I'm not the most maternal of mothers really. DS started preschool at 3yo and those 5 hours a day, 5 days a week child free were marvellous.

When DT’s were born both sets of grandparents were still working full time and also lived a flight away. I don’t know anyone who used grandparents as childcare manly because they were still working full time .

This also sounds fantastic, but extremely unrelatable, unfortunately. Very few people would ever be able to buy even a modest house outright, however tight their budgeting. Most people probably need two salaries to pay the mortgage and bills, rather than to prioritise going out having cocktails with the girls!

My parents are lovely but I wouldn’t have wanted them doing regular childcare for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they love being grandparents and being able to spoil the kids - I know a fuckton of sugar isn’t going to hurt when it’s once in a while but it couldn’t be daily. Also - honestly, even though they’re fit and healthy, my boys would have honestly been the death of them - they exhausted me and I was in my early 30s.
Plus a lot of their ideas are quite outdated, again, fine for grand parenting but not for actually bringing them up.

There is a lot wrapped up in this though - more than the children.

I think it’s mainly due to someone’s view of themselves.

So if someone was SAH and sacrificed xyz to look after their children then they aren’t going to think well that was unnecessary. They are going to wrap that in all reasons why they had to do that.

My husband has never been judged for working so why should I because of being female?!

I also find it ironic that it's only a certain age which attracts the comments as soon as they are school age it's treated completely differently.....
Both DSs have been in nursery since 1 and they both have loved it. We were very particular about which one to send them to, spoke to lots of parents and went with one which majority of staff have been there a very long time. Same faces for DS2 as DS1 with a 3 year age gap.

I do believe dad's should get more paid time off and more focus should be made on dad's doing their fair share. My DH does and honestly by other women he's treated as if he's gods gift.....he's a great dad but I don't get why other women's expectations of men is so in the floor that a dad doing 50/50 or drop offs is to be held on a pedestal!

The SEED study is interesting. It followed around 4000 children attending a variety of settings. It found that generally childcare is good for children (although it included informal childcare from grandparents in this) in various outcomes, but that too much childcare (over 35 hours a week) may not be, particularly when babies start at a young age (less than 1 year). Obviously, these studies are really difficult to interpret as there is likely to be a lot of confounding. I also think about the 'outcomes' they choose: I'm not really interested in whether my DC do slightly better in their Y1 phonics check as a result of attending a particular type of childcare. I'm more interested in whether they have secure and happy lives in the day to day.

I think the evidence is pretty clear that for disadvantaged kids, high quality childcare can give them a leg-up educationally. It is also clear that for babies and young toddlers, consistent and warm caregiving is really important. This consistency may be more difficult to achieve in a nursery. The 'warmth' aspect is also why people often favour relatives. For all the eccentricities of grandma's approach to childcare, she is very likely to love the child.

My general feeling is that under age about 2, it's better for the kid to be with a parent, family member or childminder most of the time, assuming that environment is caring and consistent (ie if mum hates it and wants to go back to work, it's not going to be better for the child). From about age 2, children benefit from some childcare, but full-time nursery is best avoided.

Personally I think for the majority of children it makes very little difference. Being at home all the time doesn't automatically equal quality or 'good' parenting unfortunately. There's being present and there's being 'present', and the latter is what's important.

Children with attachment disorders don't get those in isolation from going to nursery. They get those because of quite severe issues with parenting that occur whether the parent is at home 100% of the time or not.

My DS isn’t better off with being at home with me. I struggled with the endlessness of maternity leave and enjoy my work, I looked forward to going back to work. I am the higher earner by far, but DH’s job is less flexible and he’s away for work on-site a lot. I have to make it work if DS is sick, I do all drop offs and pick ups.
I work part time and have one weekday off with DS, and am lucky to have parents who do a day’s childcare - he is in nursery 3 days a week and he’s come on leaps and bounds in that time, learning to share, eating with other children, playing together and developing their imagination. I think there is benefit in both but I would personally feel unfulfilled being at home until he goes to school, and we couldn’t afford mortgage bills food and petrol on DS’s salary.
Its also worth noting that being at home with a parent until they’re school age is entirely pointless if they’re just stuck in front of a tv all day… so there is too much nuance there to say whether it’s better or not!

I was fortunate (?) enough not to be able to earn enough to pay for childcare, so the decision was made for us really!

I think we should be better at separating out what is best for parents and children, vs what is realistic.

Surveys very consistently show that most mothers actually want to be at home with their kids at least part-time. That is also likely to be better for the kids. If our economy makes this impossible, we still need to be really honest about the sacrifice women and children are making. Politicians talk a lot about the need for better childcare (because they have economic motivations), but actually only about 30% of mothers with children under 4 want to work more but are prevented by childcare. The other 70% want to work less.

www.civitas.org.uk/2023/05/10/mothers-preferences-over-childcare-and-work/

I have 3 kids aged 1 year to 4 years.

I've returned to work each time when they were 10 months old and used a nursery.

I have absolutely no bad conscience and feel good about my choice.

I was raised by a single mother of 4 kids, who was dumped by my father when we were 6, 10, 11 and 14.

She was a housewife and the ensuing poverty and all the negative side effects and trauma have overshadowed my whole childhood.

I just don't trust men enough to ever make myself financially dependent on one. Or nature, as men can die.