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 to point out my dd was excl bf and I left her for 4hrs a day for three days when she was just 2months she did not perish and she wld not take my expressed milk. she was well nourished and had actualy jumped 2 centiles before she was 3months. also i left her for 5 hours for 4 days from 6months untill begining school. I have just had her first parents evening and was told her language development far excels her age and the other children in her class.

I hate threads like this one with a passion. All the veiled and not-so-veiled implications that those of us who go to work are emotionally short-changing our children and that it will come back to bite us on the backside in years to come.
I consider my style of parenting to be broadly attachment parenting. I breastfed to the best of my ability, carried him in a sling (and still do at 15 months), let him find his own routine, let him sleep in our bed whenever he wants etc etc.

I also returned to work full time at just before 6 months, placing him in nursery to do so. He adores nursery and I am pretty sure he adores me. When he is at nursery he is with other children he likes and plays with, and is cared for by lovely people who devote every second of their day to making things fun for him. When he is with me he rides around on my back, having constant interaction, playing silly games, sleeping cuddled into me.

I think a lot of people think that those of us who work somehow detach ourselves entirely from their children - a child isn't at nursery or with a childminder 24/7. A strongly attached parent and a parent who can separate themselves from their child to go to work are not mutually exclusive characters. Otherwise, given that the vast majority of families with one working parent have the father working outside the home, presumably the vast majorit of fathers would be detached and unatural?

I am absolutely confident that our set-up is working wonderfully well for our son. I don't feel the tiniest bit of guilt in leaving him at the nursery every morning - perhaps a bit of jealousy that I don't get to stay and play, but no guilt. I believe that it is about quality of time spent with your child, not merely quantity - the time I spend with him is spent well. There are plenty of mums who spend every waking minute with their child but don't interact with them or focus on them to the extent that many working mums do. If you are going to be a good, attached, interested parent then you are going to be that kind of parent in the time you have with your child, no matter how short that time is. If you are going to be a detached, emotionally absent parent, you are going to be that kind of parent even if you spend all your time with your child.

Like NL said - what suits one family won't suit another, so I am not sure how anyone can judge any other family for legitimate, responsible work/childcare decisions. In relation to the original discussion - yes, 3 weeks is very young and in an ideal world the mum would probably want to stay at home. However, I am sure she has weighed up all the options and decided on the best way to balance the child's emotional needs and the family's financial needs. I don't suppose she factored in "what Mumsnet will think".

Dracschick - this is not about belittling your profession, and you are wrong to take my statement personally. The fact is that no matter how brilliant a nanny/ cm/ nursery worker you may be, you are not the mother or father of my children and cannot ever be as good a parent to them as I am. So yes, good childcare IS second best to good parenting.

I have been lucky enough to have found outstanding childcare for DS over the years, and I have a very high regard for childcare providers. But I would be very suspicious of any carer who thought they were as good as me for MY children.

YANBU.

Oblomov - what a horrible friend you have :(

in the end ALL parents try and do the best for their child/ren whether being a sahm or going out to work and leaving their child with a stranger cm/nanny and thats all counts - they are trying their best

"just to point out my dd was excl bf and I left her for 4hrs a day for three days when she was just 2months she did not perish and she wld not take my expressed milk. she was well nourished and had actualy jumped 2 centiles before she was 3months"

Some mothers and babies can go long periods in between feeds and still sustain exclusive breastfeeding. Many others can't.

And the op was about a 3 week old baby.

"When he is at nursery he is with other children he likes and plays with"

That's very forward for a 6 month old. Most children don't play together until they're toddlers.

"If you are going to be a good, attached, interested parent then you are going to be that kind of parent in the time you have with your child, no matter how short that time is. If you are going to be a detached, emotionally absent parent, you are going to be that kind of parent even if you spend all your time with your child."

Nobody here is going to deny that the relationship between the parent and child is the most influential factor, and can make up for a lot of things. This has always been the case - even in situations where children are getting VERY suboptimal care in poorly run institutions (and there's no doubt that there are some stinkingly poor nurseries, childminders and nannies out there).

But again - want to come back to the point that the OP is talking about a newborn baby, not a toddler or an older baby who has already built a relationship of trust with a parent.

"I was hoping that you would tell me that you appreciate that not everyone feels that way. But that it doesn't make you any less of a mother".

I do appreciate it. And I'm in awe of mothers who care beautifully for their babies when there is a dearth of passion there to carry them through the early difficult days. That's true dedication.

"So say you felt this way about one of your children. But it was harder to bond with middle dc.
So how do you expalin this."

Don't know that I can explain it. I had a difficult birth with dc2 (shoulder dystocia at a homebirth) and he was very different to dc1. Maybe this made a difference. I was hugely attached to him and couldn't be away from him, but there wasn't that same sensation of passion - my heart beating faster when I thought of him. Very strange really. I'm madly in love with him now.

May be some of us find it sad mothers feel they have to be home and that those mothers are wrong and not doing the best thing for their children. Thankfully we live in a country where we are free to express that view. Some of us are just better mothers and more competent and fitter and can manage chilren and work when the babies are very little and breastfeed too.

Not everyone can be as good or competent as we earlier returners to work but by all means seek to emulate us for thus is the route to a much better life.

If you love a baby and enjoy breastfeeding as I have done with 5 children over 26 years now having children and working is a wonderful thing. If you return to work quickly then it is better psychologically for the baby as they bond with their mother and father more equally (housewives tend to do too much and their husbands too little so the dynamic at home is all wrong) and also bond with their nanny or whoever is also sharing the caring so the baby has a win win situation and no massive change in its life if the mother goes to work much later. It knows from the start exactly where it is - lovely mummy and breastmilk and all that bonding when mummy is around, fun time with daddy too and lots of nice attention from its lovely nanny. Wonderful. Obviously harder when you have 3 under 4 as we did and then the twins but still pretty good. And most of those benefits and gains came from parents who were working well and remember of course the most important indicator for chidl outcomes is wealth of the famly. Nothing a mother can do for a baby is perhaps as good as bringing in £100k a year etc. Working mothers rules. I would encourage all mothers to go back full time at 2 weeks.

Words fail me.

Xenia needs to convince herself that being a single FT working mother to five children with no exP support is a desirable lifestyle and a good role model for her DCs.

Humour her .

"Nothing a mother can do for a baby is perhaps as good as bringing in £100K a year etc".

Well perhaps words also failed those of us who work to here that those who have chosen the lesser path are "sad" for us. Go forth and weep your tears but they are tears of pointless and misplaced tears as we are the lucky ones whom you might rightly envy.

Most working mothers are very good parents as indeed are working fathers adn we bring up our chidlren well. We tend to be better at psychology and have higher educational qualifications than housewives which is obviously likely to be so of course we make the better parents. So as long as children in either situation are loved and fed etc then you factor in your other variables. A good education (7% of children get 50% of the best univesrity places because their mothers paid school fees or fathers), higher family income which means mummy isn't cleaning and doing chores as others do that but is able to talk and be with them, more time for cuddles if you outsource cleaning etc. It's win win. I recommend it.

"Some of us are just better mothers and more competent and fitter and can manage chilren and work when the babies are very little and breastfeed too"

How often you and your baby need to breastfeed to maintain an adequate supply to meet your baby's growing needs in the first few weeks and months will depend on the unique physiology of the mother and the baby.

"If you return to work quickly then it is better psychologically for the baby as they bond with their mother and father more equally"

Maybe you can point us in the direction of some good quality research which backs up your point that small babies who not cared for full-time by a parent have better psychological outcomes?

Or is your assertion actually just wishful thinking?

"and remember of course the most important indicator for chidl outcomes is wealth of the famly. Nothing a mother can do for a baby is perhaps as good as bringing in £100k a year etc"

Oh come on Xenia - it depends which measures you use. If you're looking solely at educational outcomes then perhaps. But I grew up in a very privileged community and my observation was that divorce, drug addiction, alcoholism, eating disorders and depression are rife in these groups. I notice far less of it among the solid middle-class families whose social circles I move in now. Once you have reached a certain level of income the benefits of wealth start to level out.

Xenia, are you sure smugness has nothing to do with it? Surely the predominant personality trait of a parent has something to do with the outcome for the children? Don't be modest now.

I'm sure Xenia that you are a great mum. You must have a lot of energy.

I tried to work full-time and couldn't make enough money to compensate for all the hours I was spending out of the house - spent vastly more on food and rather crap after-school childcare and had too little time to spend with my children. Would have been completely different if I'd been earning 100K a year, and I could have paid someone else to mother my children while I went out and did something more worthwhile.

Personally, I don't feel sad for anyone. I think there are probably amazing working mothers and fathers and shockingly poor stay at home mothers and fathers and vice versa. I don't believe the fact of going out to work or staying home is, in itself, likely to be any more than a single variable in child development.

Xenia, I have no issue with your choices. I do have an issue with you spouting absolute bollocks and wrapping it up in pseudo-scientific waffle about "outcomes".

What does "we tend to be better at psychology?" mean? Better than whom, exactly? In what way? Who are these droves of uneducated "housewives" that you compare yourself to, as though there was two groups of people, the educated full-time workers and the slovenly stupid housewives?

As for this: "Not everyone can be as good or competent as we earlier returners to work but by all means seek to emulate us for thus is the route to a much better life." Sounds like something a pre-teen would say.

Seriously, Xenia, at least try to make your argument a tad more sophisticated. Apparently you have the education to do so. Don't do yourself such a disservice as to continue on with tripe like this that has no foundation, style or class.

tittybangbang - of course the middle classes have problems with divorce, booze, drugs, eating disorders and depression. Sahming from birth to 25 is no vaccine against any of that.

FFS get a grip ladies!!

"tittybangbang - of course the middle classes have problems with divorce, booze, drugs, eating disorders and depression"

I didn't say they didn't!

I was making a case that divorce, drug abuse, alcoholism and eating disorders may be more common in very rich communities than among the mere comfortably off middle-classes.

It has fuck all to do with whether someone is a SAHM or not.

Tittybangbang - I am afraid that I have just lost all the respect I gained for you during a recent BFing thread where you stuck to your guns and kept responding clearly and patiently to some truly stupid comments. I am quite taken aback at your pick pick picking at other posters' comments.

""When he is at nursery he is with other children he likes and plays with"

That's very forward for a 6 month old. Most children don't play together until they're toddlers."

Your purpose in disecting this particular comment was what exactly? To undermine my assertion that my child is happy at nursery? To go behind my comments about our arrangement being a good one? Why did you feel the need to do this? And whatever your reasoning, why did you not read my post properly before leaping gleefully on a "mistake"? My child is 15 months old. I said he IS happy at nursery with children he likes and plays with. Is. Present tense. If I wanted to discuss what happened at 6 months old I would probably have said "he was with carers he seems to love and other children who he likes watching" or something along those lines. Also, if any sort of playing with other children is forward, then I guess my son and his little friend are very forward since they have interacted together with each other with every appearance of enjoyment from a very early age.

You don't have to pull at and pick over the experiences of those of us who are content with our work-children balance and, quite frankly, I find it quite distasteful. It is as though you are looking for a weakness to exploit.

Again, the experiences of one will not be the experiences of all. If someone says that their situation is a good and positive one, is it really necessary to paw over their post saying "well is it, is it really? Are you sure?"

There is certainly a case to be made that children and mothers do better if the mother is back at work very quickly and you rarely see that suggested in the press which is a great pity given large numbers of women do return to full time work and find it works very well for them.

Xenia - why does a case have to be made for anyone doing "better", whether it be the children of SAHMs or the children of working mums?

Why can't everyone accept that what is best for one child/mother/family will not be best for all? Why does one "side" have to be right?

[beats head repeatedly against office wall, taking great care to avoid framed pictures of happy, healthy son]

is it really necessary to paw over their post saying "well is it, is it really? Are you sure?"

Oh come on - I made one sarky comment about your six month old playing with other children at nursery.

None of the other comments were a direct response to your PERSONAL experience were they? So why the over-reaction?

I didn't start the thread. A housewife decided the better choices working mothers take are something very sad. I say instead we are so lucky and good when we make those choices and the housewives should not feel sad for us and instead look into their own lives etc...

If women work everyone is happier and it also makes it more likely you can do things like afford univesrity fees for your children never mind feed them.

Although of course al the studies show children do best when parents are content. It is parents who moan all the time and hate their choices who damage their children most.

Why make the sarky comment if not to undermine? There was nothing in my post undermining or disagreeing with the practice of staying at home with your children, so why the need to be sarky?
And again, I did not say anything about a 6 month old playing with other children.

Oh my dear lord. I have been a mumsnetter for years and nothing, really nothing has stirred me to post more than Xenia's statement that 'nothing a mother can do for a baby is perhaps as good as bringing in 100k a year etc.'

I don't have to say more do I? It is an obviously ridiculous statement isn't it?