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.

And there seems to this rosy belief that in the 'olden days' that mums and babies had such a stronger bond cos mum was at home all the time. But parenting was totally different back then, and often with a lot less warmth than we have now for many people who grew up in that kind of period. Children were often left to their own devices a lot more, there was little understanding of children's mental state, emotional development, days were often filled with mum doing household chores or odd jobs while baby was just left to get on with it. I don't imagine they were titting about providing sensory experiences in tuff trays or setting up painting or other activities the entire day.
It was an entirely different environment for a child.

@Sweatinginthecold i laughed at “teleport to work”! I always wondered about the logic of this too - how the heck are you supposed to get to work on time and drop of kids? My dc primary school didn’t have a breakfast club and so childminders were like hens teeth

If people don't want to stay at home it's a different question. I don't care if you do or not.

The op was wondering how people could make it work financially unless one parent is a very high earner.

My point is that for many medium earners, I don't see that there's much financial difference between being a sahm vs sending a child to nursery full time. So surely if someone can afford one they can afford the other.

Sacrifice is your answer. Cutting down. Both going part-time.

That's how we did it.

The only thing we "couldn't afford" was to let DC being brought up by strangers he didn't know at the most vulnerable time of his life. The research supports this.

PS: Oh, having just one helps in this regard...... 😜i have no answers if you have more! all i can say it's probably very tough and you have to do what you have to do

I have a high earner husband and I also have investments from pre-children which bring me nearly £1000 a month income. The deciding factor for us through was childcare costs, we were quite unique in our friendship group that neither family on waiter side wanted to support with childcare at all and my old role started at 7am and finished at 6pm, we would have been paying £2000 a month for childcare per child so someone less qualified in childcare than me to raise my children, we would not have seen them awake in the week really. It’s not perfect though, the career sacrifice is hard and I sometimes feel like I’m wasting my brain so I don’t think you can win either way 🤷🏻‍♀️

Exactly this, people who say they have to work when the kids are super young because they need the money I just don't believe it. Nursery is so expensive it literally costs more than I earn.

If we were being honest we'd admit we need a mental break from the boredom and mundanity of being stuck at home (which is fair enough those 50s housewives had to take tranquillisers to keep going)

I looked at the research a lot, when my eldest was coming up to one. We're in the very fortunately position that I didn't have to go back to work if I didn't want to, but I love my job, so I wanted to know what was best. The research I saw all seemed to depend on the quality of care, in that good nurseries with good home life showed no difference when compared to keeping children at home. But if home life was poor it didn't matter how good the nursery was. The affect of poor nurseries if home life was good was much lower.

We only do three days a week though, as I work 4 days a week as does hubby, so we do one day each at home during the week.

Totally agree with this. It's not about money, it's about the strength to do it day in day out. The older generations were alot tougher than us.

This is why I advocate for part-time and spread it between both parents (if poss)

Also don't do gentle parenting, you'll go nuts. Do firm but fair.

There's a long term financial difference. We see it here all the time. Mum takes too long off work, can't get a well paying job when DH gets sick / runs off with the secretary.

The answer is it very much depends on the children. I suspect the people who are pro-childcare just have kids who are just naturally well suited to that environment.

My daughter didn't cope at all. The constant noise, overstimulation and lack of proper naps was just too much for her. On the other hand her cousin absolutely thrived and never wanted to go home.

It's nothing to do with being tougher, it's the exact opposite. Women were trained into being doormats and told their only value was in the kitchen and bedroom.

There seems to be a perception it's nursery full time OR home. In reality, most people I know used a mix of nursery/childminder, grandparents, and/or the parents themselves had one or two days off during the week. Mine loved nursery but were there only 2 days a week, 2 days with grandparents and I had a day off before they started school. Worked fine, and seemed to be a nice balance for them. I know some people don't have family or live too far away or they won't help (we chose to stay close to one set of grandparents geographically even though for my career it would have been a bit better if we'd moved), however the stay at home vs full time nursery debate is slightly more nuanced in a lot of cases.

Not everyone has that luxury though, do they?

Those who are lucky and have their ‘village’, as in their parents help out are lucky. Those who don’t have this, but have to go to work have no alternative option.

You are damned if you do, and damned if you don’t when it comes to work/being a SAHM and kids as a mother.

I didn't have the "luxury" of a job that made it cost effective to work. I am still quite envious of those who did/do.

And/or family support.

Its a difficult time.

As I understand it the evidence is that human babies are able to build secure emotional attachments with multiple caregivers.

However as the number of caregivers gets bigger and bigger they struggle to build attachments and their emotional development suffers.

This is babies so under 1 year old.

At the maximum, you have situations like the Romanian orphanages where there was very little consistent caregiving and the babies suffered in terms of emotional and social development.

The standard mat leave in this country is quite long, but in other countries it is not and you have six week old babies going into nursery care.

So for babies, the younger they are the more important it is that they have caregivers around them (ideally mum and dad but it does not have to be) up to a maximum of three or four that they can attach to and that meet their physical and emotional needs.

As they get older, they are more able to cope with higher numbers of caregivers, however most nurseries use the key worker system for a reason - so that (at least in theory) the child can attach to that person.

The research on nurseries mostly shows that high quality care is equal to high quality parenting but that high quality care is better than low quality parenting.

Low quality nursery care (multiple caregivers who change regularly) isn't better than high quality parenting and may or may not be better than low quality parenting depending on how attached the child is.

Socialisation and other benefits largely kick in about the age of 3.

SAHP - usually SAHM for early years even on low incomes as cheaper than nursery.

P/t working round one full time working parent - evening/weekends/even nights/sometime even round a young child.

Both parents P/T hours - or condensed work 4 days/3 days - often with a GP or day at nursery - so 3-4 days with different parent usually older senior and highly skilled.

One or two days with one GP - other days with other parent/grandparent possible as older one or two nursery days as well.

Child minders - parent becoming one or using along side days at home with parent/GP or nursery.

Full time nursery from 6 months.

I've never lived in social groups who had nannies though known people who worked as them in prior years.

Otherwise known families that did all the above combinations - often shifting as kids aged - one area 6 month full time nursery and two careers was common in another very rare as there were wider kin networks and more jobs than careers. There are up and downs to all combinations - had a mum friend who constantly shifted between combinations as none was hundred percent right - it depends on child and what options parenst actually have to chose from.

It gone on into school years - Dsis been on her own twice - she does mix of after school clubs and condensed hours or picking up hours when kids in bed - and with first DGP - other parent and after school clubs.

Jane has a high earning partner and chooses to stay home. They've house garden and ££ for baby classes.

Janet has high earning partner her own high earning job. They've house garden and ££ for childcare etc kids go to childcare

No difference in child outcome . So long as Jane is married she is protected financially

Jenny has low earning partner lives in small 4th floor flat with tiny balcony. She takes baby along to food banks and does at home cleaning to make cash while baby babbles alongside.it s cold. Stres is high.

Jennifer has low earning partner lives in small 4th floor flat with tiny balcony. She goes along to food banks and does at home cleaning to make cash . It is cold. Toddler goes to nursery with funding and is in warm space with toys and hot meals.

Big difference for child outcomes.

Petra and partner have mid income jobs petra stays home can go to some baby classes. But as kids grow it is harder to get back into job and hard to meet teen expenses. Petra has no pension other than state NI credits

Petronella and partner are mid income and pay childcare which is expensive and they struggle for first 5 years...but they in it for the long haul. As kids grow they can support them at uni and beyond . Both have paid into pensions.

Both kids have similar outcomes but petronella is in stronger position long term financially

I was self employed and could take on work in evenings. I had very very little free time and it wasn't ideal. I did get to look after DD when she was little though. She then did her age in days a week at ten time nursery, so 2 days at age 2 etc. We felt this was the best balance of family sheet income for us, but it's very challenging

I have a nanny who brings her toddler daughter (cheaper) two days a week, then a lovely childminder who only has 2-3 kids three days a week and takes them to playgroups and afternoon walks every day.

Me and DH vary our pick ups and drops offs so my DC does shorter than average days, both with nanny and CM.

She is two and talks excitedly about her two friends at the childminders, and shouts "YAAAAY!" At top volume every time our nanny arrives.

I also don't think nurseries are a good environment whatsoever for children. But my current set up is the same cost and my DC is a lot happier. I even think she's happier than being at home with me, because she adores her friends. She even asks if they can come over at the weekends sometimes.

So - that's what I'm doing because I think nurseries are bad.

But some people do earn more than nursery costs?

I earn quite a lot more than the cost of nursery.

If either of us gave up work, we could definitely survive on one salary but we would need to move house as we wouldn't be able to afford the mortgage on this one and change our lifestyle.

I can’t speak for anyone but myself. I left work when pregnant with my second (my mum minded my first for a few months as I was already pregnant with baby #2 when I returned from maternity leave with my first).

Went on to have four in total, the first three close together. My husband was the sole earner. It wasn’t easy but we made sacrifices to enable me to be at home with them and provide all their childcare. When they got older, but still primary school age I became a registered child minder for a young brother and sister for a while in addition to my four, to bring in some extra income.

You can argue it either way. I had a stay at home mother, and I don't think that did me any favours. I was very shy and struggled to socialise as a small child - formal childcare would have helped me. I also had a poor role model, who did NOT demonstrate to me the value of careers for women, and she also lived a small, narrow lifestyle which made her incredibly judgemental (actually that last bit may have just been her personality 😂). But surely working parents are good for children?

I mean that's fair enough I'm obviously not saying no one earns more than nursery costs but like you say you could still survive if you went on one salary.
I usually see people argue they couldn't afford not to go to work which just seems disingenuous because you have to earn quite a lot before it even covers nursery fees. Unless you have family help.

I think it's ok to admit being around a young child 24/7 would drive you crazy. I mean we love them but those early years are relentless

We're certainly not rolling in it. But I never had much of a wage anyway so never made a difference to us financially. We don't go without and have a lovely lifestyle. My husband earns an okish wage but we life in an expensive neighbourhood.
I've loved being at home with the kids and not missing out on them. But I know I'm lucky. If I'd have had a career then giving it up would have meant a big lifestyle change that we'd have had to make a decision about wether to sacrifice thing in order to have me stay home. I'd like to think I'd do that, as I absolutely love it.

But why did you never have much of a wage?