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.

Most mums “at home” with a young child aren’t physically inside their house all day every day though. It’s just a way of saying SAHM - but it doesn’t mean you literally stay at home all the time.

when mine were young I was out every day with them, shopping, visiting other mums with children, visiting family, going to parks/ playgrounds etc.

I didn't go back to work when my DC were young because it didn't make sense economically.
(My kids are teens now)
I just looked up the cost of a ft nursery place for a 1 year old in a local nursery, and I'd need to earn 38000 to cover it. That's not an especially low wage. (In RL v MN)

I know people are quick to point out it's a household expense but the result is the same the household will lose money if one party is earning less than the cost of nursery. For some people the progression of their career, or the other person's earning power means that it's worth taking the hit, for others it probably isn't viable.

The balance we're striking is that we have both compressed hours so that we have a day off each with our son, and we juggle our hours so that he's only in 8-4 three days a week.

Full salaries, both careers and pensions advancing. A break for us that isn't too hard on him.

I really feel like the future is a four day week. Productivity can be achieved in more ways than simple presence, and it will lessen the social and health care burden.

The options are not just nursery nanny or stay home yourself. There are also childminders. I'm biased as I'm a childminder but I genuinely think this is the best option. I e worked in nursery and I can't stand it, it's battery farmed children in my experience. Nannies can be amazing and the bonus is they also can do some housework so you time off work is family time not housework but most nannies are not qualified and don't follow the early years curriculum, this may be brilliant childcare for very small babies but I believe childcare is education as much as allowing parents to work.

A nanny risks lack of socialisation particularly in the 3-4 age bracket as most other kids are in childcare by then or not at the toddler groups you can utilise for social. And a nursery can be too much and overwhelming for the quiet shy kids or some children with SEN.

A childminder is the best of both worlds (a GOOD childminder some can be crap just like nursery or nanny there is a range).

BUT this is all based on my experience of the average child and the average setting. Some children thrive on the bustle of a nursery. Some children used to getting their own way and pushing others about do better in larger groups where sharing and turn taking is a constant not just occasional lesson. And some nannies are trained in the EYFS and do make huge efforts to ensure the home provision includes all that a group setting can.

Some children are better off at home with a sah parent because that parent is involved, centres the child and wants to be at home with the child.

Some children are better off in some form of childcare because the parent wouldnt be as involved, or simply doesn't want to be at home.

There's then variables like financing a SAHP, will having one put the family into poverty? Some families choose bigger/ nicer houses that mean they both have to work. Eg, wanting a bedroom per child vs DC sharing a room. Both are valid choices.

And Of course, for some people they don't have a choice. Because even with 2 parents working full time they can only just cover the basics.

So it isn't one size fits all. I wish it were more socially acceptable, and affordable for one parent to stay at home if that's what they, as a family, want. But I don't know how that becomes a reality.

I'm a professional who will have to go back to work to keep my (flexible, well-paying) career as it's not one where you can take career breaks. Ah well. I don't like it and think my children would be better off cared by me or a family member but have weighed up my limited options and that's what we'll do.

As a matter of policy, I think the entire concept of nursery funded hours should be scrapped. It's nonsense that often doesn't even result in a subsidy and constrains parents to a particular childcare model which is very few people's first choice.

I also dislike the economic sleight of hand in saying that a minimum wage nursery worker looking after 3 kids to enable a mum of 3 to go to work in a minimum wage job is economically beneficial and counts as "two jobs", but the same mum of 3 staying home with her kids is "zero jobs". Especially in today's world where many skilled jobs pay not much more than minimum wage, it feels even more pointless.

I think we should be more thoughtful in how we fund parents: perhaps some combination of direct subsidies and making paid childcare tax-deductible so that it's primarily used by women who would use it for highly-paid skilled work.

We make it work by both working part time, different shifts, which is more tax efficient. Also means we both get some variety, and quality time with the children. We're not high earners - we earn about £40K between us (DH's weekly hours aren't completely consistent so it varies) but we do get to keep most of it. And we live somewhere with low housing costs.

I do find those who say being with children is boring/ brain-rotting/ etc incomprehensible though. I have a pretty academic sort of job and my kids are far more interesting and intellectually engaging. Maybe you've all got more interesting jobs than me!

Absolutely!
Taking them to see interesting things, museums , dinosaurs, fishing, so many things to do - Stodging about indoors was never an option.
Their brains are like sponges, absorbing so much at that age.
Plus playing with nice friends.

A Judge once said ''Little boys need their mummies- I see the result of them not having their mummies with them all too often''-

Was he sexist? I don't know..but he was adamant that children need a parent with them in early years for emotional wellbeing.

{Wish I could remember his name!}

We are very fortunate to have been able to make it work, but as you say it is not realistic for most families.

DH and I have always both believed that is it best for children to be cared for primarily by a parent until they start school, and we have been able to make that happen thanks to a fortunate set of circumstances. DH earns extremely well and we live very comfortably on his income alone. He loves what he does and is very talented at it, whereas I ended up hating my chosen career which didn’t bring in much money anyway. So it made perfect sense for me to stop working and care for our children when they came along.

DS1 is now at school and DS2 will start nursery two days a week next September at the age of two and a half. Once DS2 is at school I will try to find part time work to fit in with school hours.

In some ways I am vulnerable as I am completely financially reliant on DH - if anything happened to him I couldn’t even cover our mortgage, let alone other outgoings - however we have a large amount of joint savings and investments and I also have my own savings which DH pays into each month for me.

Our arrangement works very well for us but we are relatively wealthy and I cannot see how this arrangement would be practical in “normal” circumstances. We as a society need to value the importance of the early years more and make it easier for parents who would like to keep their children at home with them for longer.

I have never worked since I got pregnant with my first child. My husband and I discussed it, and decided that I would stay home and raise the children and take care of the home while he went to work and earned the wage to keep us. We are a team, and we both play our part. In the country we live in, children attending school from 7:40am until 1:20 so unless you have family support you would have to pay for wraparound care..add in the fact that my eldest has health issues that means I have had to drop everything and meat him and a teacher at the hospital several times over his school career and there was no way for me to be able to work, even part-time. Our decision worked for us, in our circumstances..but each woman must make their own decision and respect everyone else's decisions. The world will always judge us, so we should support each other instead or tearing each other down. The scorn for sahm on mn is appalling

Both of us were (are, they're both teenagers now) SAHPs because we were able to but if it hadn't been possible then we'd have been very happy for them to go to nursery. The children I know that did as babies are all very well adjusted. So do whatever works for you as a family.

Lots of people need to A - mind their own business, and B - bear in mind that for most people, going out to work and leaving their dc in childcare is not a lifestyle choice but a financial necessity.

He’s a wise man.

To be honest I found the nursery routine too stultifying for young children (Later in life I worked in several, including day-to-day running of one).

The set-up is necessarily regimented- time for break, time for nap, time for lunch, time for outdoor play, and apart from odd trips never going off-site to visit interesting places and people. The children are always in the same rooms, with the same people, doing the same (albeit rotated) activities. Very little individuality, spontaneity. Boring.

I was the main earner (not by much) when I gave up work. We’ve kind of always made decisions conservatively. So we had a small house near to amenities/public transport so we’ve only ever needed 1 car. We’re not into tech or buying fancy clothes, most of our money goes on holidays which when our income was lower meant cheaper/less holidays (lots of research!). We didnt go mad at Xmas, our little kid didn’t have brands and he had ‘enough’ clothes but not loads. I grew up poor so honestly I’m just happy to have a house! I don’t think some people are willing to sacrifice a certain lifestyle and that is ok and entirely up to them but at least be honest about it!

@OnlySlightly

Lots of reasons that aren't relevant to this post.

I think most fall into the second example you gave, on minimum wage so can get back to work easily after years out, benefit top ups, childcare cost far more than wage, tighten the belts etc.
And then some with high earning husbands.

What crap is this? All this it's better for babies, no toddler should be at nursery. Bullshit. Mine loved nursery. I worked part time. Still do. Best of both worlds.

Did you mean to be so rude?

I am a stay at home parent by choice. As DH says he’s only able to go to work to earn ‘our’ salary because I look after the children.

I’ll teach my children that there’s lots of different people and paths in this world. Hopefully they’ll pick one that makes them happy but whatever they do, I’ll teach them to not judge others.

OP started this thread to ask how SAHP make it work.

You’ve chosen the wrong nursery - doesn’t resemble the one we used for DT’s.

have worked in several. Glad you found a good one. How often does he go out on excursions (not just into the on-site play area) while he’s at nursery?

They went out of the nursery daily and had free access to outdoor space within the nursery. For toddlers and older they had things like yoga, cookery, messy play( which I would never do), visits to care homes, fire station, on nature walks.

The majority of nurseries are not bad as some (who don’t use them) portray.

I’m impressed they went out daily. What sort of places did they go to?

I’m surprised you wouldn’t ever do cooking and messy play yourself, but each to his own. I wouldn’t do yoga either.

I don’t like cooking with pre schoolers and hate messy play - left that totally to nursery.

They went to different parks, a local nature trail (great for leaf collecting), the library, fire station, old people’s home, small group visits to the supermarket.

And did that big, important male judge think little boys need their daddies? Did he think it enough to stay at home for years with all of his offspring, rather than climbing through the ranks of the legal system and pontificating from the bench about what women should be doing?

Did he devote himself to ensuring that women in the legal profession who had taken time out to be SAHMs were able to slot back into law again without being permanently penalised for having children? Did he institute family-friendly workplace practices for both sexes at his chambers? Would he like to give an account of what time he got home from work at on the average evening?

Or is this, as I suspect a case of women knowing their place?

The more time children can spend with 2 parents in a happy home filled with educational opportunities the better

But that doesn't mean no to women working , it doesn't mean nurseries or childminders are bad - and many ( most?) children can benefit from a mixed care system

It needs to be financially possible for both parents to work part time yet have enough to live off - the child can have days with dad, days with mam and days with other kids and adults

I wonder if the judge conflated cause and effects - poverty leads to parents spending less good quality time with their children and also leads to disengaged and troubled children- but the cause is the poverty and lack of dignity and hope in the family, not the time they spent together