to be saddened by a three week old baby in full time childcare?

[lilystyles]

At a local toddler group last week there was a childminder who I'm friendly with, she had with her a new child, a baby of 3 weeks who's mother had gone back to work full-time in teh pub she and her husband own. I am not judging this woman, it's her choice but I couldn't help but feel sad at the situation.

Well it should be!

If the state were able to pay grandparents to look after children, they would be able to pay mothers/fathers to stay at home. I can catagorically state that I would rather pay a CM because my mum would feel obliged to do it if I asked and that is unfair.

Yes, and a mother has more say in the child-rearing if she pays a non-relative, which I think is important

Bonsoir - on the whole, yes I do think that a baby's primary need is for physical care more than emotional or intellectual care. However I do use the word care - the physical care is given with care ie the baby is treated gently, consistently, with consideration to his/her feelings. A parent would call this loving care but this could equally be given by a paid care giver. The baby learns from this.

As my children get older my physical care of them becomes more to do with maintenance (food and laundry, providing a safe home). The emotional and intellectual care comes from discussion, advice, mentoring etc about all manner of subjects from behaviour towards each other to topics in the news to helping with homework. They need my hands less and my brain more.

Whether the parents are working or not, and I know a fair few non working women who still have full time care for their children, it's shit.

"I can catagorically state that I would rather pay a CM because my mum would feel obliged to do it if I asked and that is unfair"

Yes - having my mum look after my dd did make things hard sometimes, and it was much easier to tell an au-pair or nursery nurse what I wanted from them. Weighing it up though, I felt it was preferable for my dd to be in the care of someone who genuinely loves her and enjoys being with her during the most . As adults my mum and I just had to work it out between us, and we did.

Re: any kind and caring professional can care for a baby in a way that is as emotionally responsive as a parent - do those of you who hold this view think consistency matters? Do you think it's important that the child develop a relationship with one trusted care-giver, or would a succession of nice people be just as good? What I'm trying to get at is - do you think it's important for a baby to develop a RELATIONSHIP with their primary caregiver? And if you do think this is the case, wouldn't it be a given that a baby's relationship with the person who loves them most in the world going to be more responsive and satisfying to the baby than someone who is simply being paid to care?

I personally rather disliked (to put it mildly) the first 6 months or so of all 3 of mu DS#s lives. Of course I loved them, (still do - though 10yr strops do test it at times ) but to be honest I think I'd quite happily have gone back to work in those early months and took time off later.

I think young babies are cute, (even cuter when they're my own) but I do find them incredibly boring, and frustrating (more so than when they hit the "terrible two's") and DS1 was about 8 months before I ever really bonded with him!

I see someone has just posted about night nurseries. I came very close to being in a position where I would have had to return to work with a newborn, in a night shift. (we managed to hold the marriage together for another year though so didn't). I genuinely looked into over night care for my DS's - and (at that point) unborn baby.

It would have been a choice between benefits or working............though I'm on benefits now 3yrs later and single so not sure how the argument stacks up.

For me consistency is to do with reliability rather than necessarily being with one person.

For family reasons I have read around the subject of attachment disorders. As I understand it (but I dont pretend to be an expert), attachment disorders tend to stem from the unreliability of caregivers rather than the number of caregivers ie if a child can trust the adults around him or her self. I know that this is a gross oversimplification of a very complex issue but that would be my 'elevator speach' on it.

as a species wee're NOT designed to be cared for by a PRIMARY caregiver, however there should be consistency. The same nanny/nursery nurse/CM. There's nothing wrong with a primary caregiver, but it's a very 21st century idea and not a child's need.
Children historically were cared for by a community, larger at first, more family orientated later, but it was always a collection of people, not the isolated mother we so often see today who has to drag her recently stitched up fanjo out of the house while single -handendly caring for one or more youngsters if she wants to have any hope for adult interaction. Newly delivered mother was looked after for several weeks after birth, and when she was up she'd take over her tasks -whether that meant going to work while the community/rest of family looked after her baby or she looked after teh house and the family's children along with the other members that did the same.
the children formed secure bonds with all members of the family they were interacting with and benefited from a wider range of ages/interests/knoelwdge/behaviour.

Children feel safe with consistency. Why shouldn't they bond with their CM? I undestand that some women might feel threatened by this idea, especially if they feel defined by their role as a mother (and this is not aimed at anyone here, but such women DO exist) but then they're equally threatened when they see their baby bonding with the father.... Let's not go there though...

twilight - I tried to post something similar but kept getting muddled with my words so gave up. But your post says it beautifully.

Lynette - I seriously doubt that there are mothers out there who 'happily leave their six month old babies' and go to work. Each household is different and I can guarantee that those going back to work at six months are doing so because they HAVE to, not because they 'happily' want to leave their six month old babies. I am the main breadwinner in our household with a new mortgage, car on finance etc - there is no way we could have afforded extending my maternity leave as we could have lost our home.

OP, YABU, that little 3 week old has not been abandoned and is being looked after by someone who has been chosen carefully by the mother

Jesus wept. Some women won't be happy till they see all women barefoot and pregnant with several more babies at their skirts.

All looked in a kitchen.

YABU.

She has a business to run.

If she gave it all up then there'd be a thread on how she's a despicable dole-scrounger.

Self-employed people more or less don't have a choice about when to go back to work.

At least the poor little mite was not put into a busy nursery.

If you are an employee, just be grateful that you have the choice to have maternity leave.

'Happily' covers such a multitude of situations and emotions. With my first DC I happily left her at 6 weeks with an excellent childminder (she was so good that I wanted to stay with the childminder and send DD into the office). I was happy because the childminder was good and that to not do so would have seen us on if not under the breadline.

I was reading the earlier part of this thread inwardly shouting 'Xeeeeniiiaaaa' but was glad to see that she came along and put her POV.

Lots of very patronising posts - 'saddened' etc. Climb of yer high horse. They don't allocate you motherhood points if you stay at home with your baby for months as opposed to weeks.

DD went to a childminder (whom she is still in touch with) at just under 3 months when I went back to work FT. No guilt or ill feeling whatsoever.

She is nearly 15 now and we have a brilliant relationship - she is happy, sunny, confident and a great girl. No ill effect from her 'abandonment'. Anyone can look after a baby when they are young. It is when they are teenagers that they really need you, and when they really need emotional care.

If I had another baby I would probably go back at 6 weeks. It is a perfectly sensible decision to make and has NO bearing on how good a parent you will end up. Parenting is a long game.

I don't think twilight3 is in a position to tell us how we were designed as a species? Unless of course, she were involved in our design.

We evolve differently in differently cultures.

In some cultures the the baby is strapped to the mum all the time!!! And the extended family all sleep in one bed together. I couldn't imagine doing that with my in-laws? Christ alive.

I agree with GetOffMoiLand

I thought for a long time I harboured resentment towards my mother for putting me in various day care when I was quite young.

Its taken me some time to realise that the resentment I feel is more a general lack of relationship with her that came from how she behaved towards me and treated me when I was an older child/teenager. It was more about how she was when she was there than the fact that at times she wasn't. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been happier when she was at work.

Its more than those first 12 months this parenting lark.

I went happily back to work tbh. DD's father had just buggered off, going back to work was the first positive thing to have happened since dd's birth. frankly.

If I hadn't gone back to work I would have been on income support AND a single parent AND a teenager, so would have been the scum of the earth anyway (TM Daily Mail)

i dont think this is anyone else's business and nobody should be passing comment on it.
Get your own lives!

daytoday - it is a fact that in most other societies and other times of human existence, babies did/do not spend all their time alone with their mothers.

No one is asking you to sleep with your ILs but twilight's point that this is a socially constructed way of parenting is a valid one.

I had a problem with the way 'happily' was used in the context of Lynette's post. It seemed to infer that these mothers were being irresponsible for leaving their children at such a young age. It seemed sarcastic imho.

YABU- by working this lady is feeding, clothing and putting a roof over her child's head.

I returned to work 3 months after giving birth and I found all the "returning to work so soon" comments to be very offensive and condescending. Returning to work early does not mean that this lady loves her child any less than a SAHM

"I don't think twilight3 is in a position to tell us how we were designed as a species? Unless of course, she were involved in our design."

err... yes, I am in this position as much as anyone who knows a bit about the history of human evolution. So loooong time before the existence of nations and different cultures people existed in communities much in the way I described before. Evolutionary and comparative psychologists will tell you that those are the times to take example from to understand our most basic insticts -survival and procreation, protection of the youngsters.

Are you suggesting that unless you're involved with the design of species you can't observe and search and study and find out how its designed to behave?!!!???

SuzieHomemaker - you see, I don't see things that way at all! IME, my baby needed very little physical care and an awful lot of emotional and intellectual care. As she has got older, she has become emotionally more self-sufficient (though faces many new challenges that can require support) and derives intellectual stimulation from multiple sources, but her physical needs become much greater.

Basically, as a baby she needed to be in a sling/in my arms with lots of cuddles and talking to, but I could do whatever I wanted! I didn't find her nearly as constraining physically as now.

feel sorry for the mum tbh. she will be tired and i am sure missing her baby. needs must though