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.

Just want to back up Twilight here, speaking as an evolutionary anthrolpologist by training. There is a large body of evidence suggesting that humans, compared to other mammals, have well-developed systems of alloparenting - that is the care of infants by those other than than the biological mother.

Also as a pp mentioned, my understanding is also that the poor quality and inconsistency of care is the key feature of attachment disorders.

Look, none of us can possibly tell whether this particular child is going to be somehow traumatised by this or whether it will be absolutely fine.

The only people who can tell are those who see the child day to day and can tell whether he/she is happy or not.

Suggest we leave the judging to them.

"as a species wee're NOT designed to be cared for by a PRIMARY caregiver,"

Um - we are talking about newborn babies here aren't we? Until the advent of safe formula the vast majority of very young babies HAD to be cared for by their mothers, because they were breastfed. (ok - I know about wet nurses, but this wasn't the norm)

I see mothers wanting to be with their young babies (and babies wanting to be near their mothers) as an evolutionary survival mechanism. Humans (like all other mammals) generally need to allow their babies to suckle on demand in the first few weeks and months of life when they're exclusively milk fed, to ensure an adequate supply of milk. And holding your baby close to you stimulates the production of oxytocin, which is necessary to successful breastfeeding.

In cultures where there are high rates of exclusive and continued breastfeeding mothers and babies will (by biological necessity) generally have to stay near each other in the first six months of life.

"There's nothing wrong with a primary caregiver, but it's a very 21st century idea and not a child's need".

Yes - for older children. But we are talking about newborn babies here!

YANBU.

It is sad. Why have a child if you're not going to see it all day? I don't get it.

We're not rich, but we were pretty well off before we had kids. I stopped working to be a SAHM and for the first couple of years it was really tough, couldn't afford any luxuries etc... I then took a fairly menial, low paid part time job in childcare (I used to be teacher)just so DD1 could come with me.

IMO, you have to cut your cloth accordingly.

tittybang - the usual model for alloparenting is shared care rather than being without the mother completely. And actually, shared nursing is not that rare - as you rightly point out all orphaned new borns would have to have been wet-nursed to survive.

''In cultures where there are high rates of exclusive and continued breastfeeding mothers and babies will (by biological necessity) generally have to stay near each other in the first six months of life.''

This is true - but in some of these cultures the infants spend up to a majority of thier time (when not nursing) with other carers. I have really no idea whether that has an effect on those infants development - but it certainly isn't an unnatural or uncommon situation.

"Look, none of us can possibly tell whether this particular child is going to be somehow traumatised by this or whether it will be absolutely fine"

Nothing is that simple! None of us can know with any certainty how the experiences of our infancy might impact on our emotional development later in life - these things are very subtle and complex. And we often do well IN SPITE OF rather than BECAUSE OF things that have happened to us. There are many adults around now who were raised in the 1950's when it was common to punish children harshly for bed-wetting, who were regularly hit by their parents, and were left crying alone for hours as babies. Most of these babies and children would have grown into adults who would not describe themselves as 'traumatised', but that doesn't mean they weren't affected by their experiences of early care.

We know now that the babies of mothers with severe and untreated postnatal depression are much more likely to have psychological and developmental problems as children. That's because their primary care-giver had problems engaging with them in a way which made them feel secure and gave them a strong sense of their own identity.

The intense love that we have for our children helps us be uniquely responsive to them and it's this that helps makes them into emotionally healthy adults. I'm sure there will be some women and men who are unable to engage with their baby in this way because of depression or because they feel hugely unhappy being at home and this interferes in their ability to relate well to their child. I imagine those children will be vastly better off spending the bulk of their time with a kind paid carer than with a resentful and angry parent. But I still think that the MAJORITY of children will get more responsive care from a parent or grandparent than they will from a stranger who is being paid - because true responsiveness thrives on intense love and interest.

Bingo! Close on 300 messages in, we finally get the 'why have children if you're not going to look after them' line. Every bloody time :o

This thread is well and truly over.

"And actually, shared nursing is not that rare"

No - not when breastfeeding is well-established. But we are talking about a NEWBORN here. It takes several months to securely establish breastfeeding in an exclusively breastfed baby. The mothers breasts need to be stimulated regularly - whatever the baby is doing! If this doesn't happen then breastfeeding is much more likely to fail (and is one of the reasons for the very high breastfeeding failure rate in the uk - we simply don't spend enough time feeding and holding our newborns).

"This is true - but in some of these cultures the infants spend up to a majority of thier time (when not nursing) with other carers."

So we are talking about newborns here? Can you name your sources? I've lived in Kenya, India, Sri Lanka and Thailand and my observations are different to yours. In these cultures most women keep their newborns close to them and feed them on demand.

"I have really no idea whether that has an effect on those infants development - but it certainly isn't an unnatural or uncommon situation".

It IS 'unnatural' to separate mothers from their newborn babies because of the great risk this causes of lactation failure!

If you look at our near relatives - monkeys and apes. There you will see that infants are often cared for within the group by an extended family of aunts and sisters. I know that the mother would feed the infant but the group as a whole would be part of the care.

We have evolved and have also developed the capability to feed a baby without the mother being present. This makes childcare choices far more open including leaving a small baby with his/her father or grandparents.

If the family is happy (including economically) with the decision then it is not for anyone else to criticise either explicitly or implicitly ('oh how sad' or 'what a shame').

It is very tempting to project one's own emotions in this. Stay at home parents may believe that everyone would choose to stay at home with their baby if they could. Working parents may believe that all stay at home parents are bored out of their minds.

People make decisions based on what they are able to do or want to do or think is best at the time. But it is only years down the line that you may be able to say if it was in fact the right thing to do. My own mother did not go out to work, but has now said that if she had her time again she would work more, both for financial reasons and as she feels that my siblings and I would have benefitted and grown in confidence. It is only 30 years on that she can say this with any certainty. At the time she did what seemed possible and best.

''So we are talking about newborns here? Can you name your sources?'' Fair question but I'm already spending too much time on mn today!! But a good general source on this topic is 'Mother and Others' by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (2009).

It is not unnatural by definition if it is occurring naturally. However, I would completley agree that that in itself does not mean it is ideal. Obviously a nweborn in childcare is not being breastfed - but (putting on a think flame suit here) there are a lot of other factors to consider, given that the child can be bottle fed.

I'm not actually in favour of childcare for newborns - I'm just trying to back up some perfectly reasonable issues that have been raised. It may not be ideal - but there are a lot of non-ideal parenting situations and I am not idealistic about the mother-baby bond.

I'm not going to make any claims about the consequences one way or another, since that is not my area of expertise, but in my opinion, a semi-hysterical outrage against this kind of situation is unwarranted given SO LITTLE other information about this situation.

"I'm sure there will be some women and men who are unable to engage with their baby in this way because of depression or because they feel hugely unhappy being at home and this interferes in their ability to relate well to their child. I imagine those children will be vastly better off spending the bulk of their time with a kind paid carer than with a resentful and angry parent."

Yes, titty, and the point is that the mother described in the OP may fall into this category. Indeed I would argue that a mother who chooses to have a childminder look after her very young baby is more likely to fall into this category - i.e. she has recognised that, unusually, she may not actually be the best person to look after her baby.

I don't care what monkeys/apes do with their children. It doesn't seem remotely relevant to me. Human children have to learn language and the only possible way they are going to learn to speak is by having adults speak to them, preferably one-to-one for a large part of the time.

And if the adult who is the primary carer for a child has a day-to-day vocabulary of a few hundred words and dreadful grammar, that is what the child will learn. On the other hand...

The greatest influence on a child's language come from peers - other children. So perhaps Xenia has it right - go to work and pay for a nice posh school with posh-speaking kids...

I too don't give a shit about monkeys and apes.

They generally don't have mortgages to pay or careers to care about.

Just like to point out that we are apes...

Sorry Acinon I didn't mean that to come across as rude as it did

My poor DD3 spent the first week of her life being cared for by a succession of different people, probably about a dozen of em in total, never for more than 13 hours at a time. She's showing no signs of any long term damage or attachment problems.

Acinonyx - I don't know why you believe that, but if you lived in a bilingual/multilingal environment (when it is much easier to trace a child's language influences) you would know that what you say is not true!

tittybangbang (love your name by the way)

As adults my mum and I just had to work it out between us, and we did.

I had a baby. It was not my mum's issue. If I thought that the baby should be looked after by a relative and that someone should be obliged to do it, that someone would be me. I hope that when I am a GM my children ask me to visit and babysit loads, but that they do not ever expect me to become a regular, timetabled caregiver because they want to go back to work and feel a family member would be a better carer. Make your choice, don't inconvenience others. If mums offer and really want to do this, it is different. But if, as you say, you had to 'work it out', it implies that it was a bit of a chore.

I really don't know why I am arguing this so intensely, I am a SAHM so not even an issue!

husband's (a barrister) was putting her baby in a night nursery to be looked after all night. I never knew these places existed!

tittytittybb:

'I fell profoundly and intensely in love with my children over the first few weeks of their life. I felt completely obsessed with them, thought about them non-stop, yearned for them - their physical presence, the smell and feel of them. Felt anxious when I couldn't see them. I assumed this was what the 'bonding' process was and that it was a normal, instinctive mammalian response to becoming a mother.'

I felt the same. It IS a normal, instinctive feeling. I guess that some women override it because of necessity or because a small number of women seem to regard children as an accessory rather than a person with needs as important as their own.

Do you have to feel this way then loobylu3 ?
Is that the rule.
Is that what natural mothering is as an alternative to dutiful care ?
Or, if someone doesn't do thta, they are nothing, other than, SELFISH ?
Does every single MN poster feel that way, and that way only ?

Not sure I agree Bonsoir - we lived abroad for a while and I noticed that DD1's English developed a decided American twang - we were living in Europe (neither DH or I are American). She was also bilingual in local language/English having attended the local school.

Bonsoir - Something I read while studying language aquisition and there were studies on bilingual situations (trying but failing to recall sources exactly). Also, half my family are bi/tri-lingual and I have observed in those families. Living overseas myself, I certainly noticed this in schools.

You know your family best - I accept you have not found this to be the case.

Surely it depends on the age of the child. Once the child is at school then peers will have a huge influence, but pre-school when language is first being acquired biggest influence is surely whoever cares for the child during waking hours. Bonsoir, I know extremely educated bi-lingual families where young children have poor language acquistion due to being cared for by carer who speaks neither of main languages to a competent degree.

twilight - I find your suggestion that any mother who isn't able to walk away from her newborn for several hours without a backward glance is neurotic to be slightly offensive.
Alibaba, it wasn't twilight who used the word neurotic. that was tittybangbang, when she said :
"Do you think that it's a signal of a lack of confidence in my parenting? I see it as the opposite - that I'm happy to follow my instincts and not afraid of being judged as 'neurotic' by other people!"

So has tittybb been accused of being neurotic by other posters?

One of the lovely ladies from my PNG was unable to leave her dd2. He GP told her she had 'seperation anxiety'.

Where does the line cross over, between normal maternal, and seperation neurosis.

seems unclear to me !!