So, I actually know I'm being unreasonable, but I don't know why, please come and kick some sense into me...Keeping toddlers in full time childcare when on maternity leave with the second, why?

[realasitgets]

I've just realised I probably go a bit cats bum faced about it when people tell me they keep their toddler in full time childcare while they're at home full time on maternity leave with the second.

I know continuity is important etc etc..But I also know many f/t working parents who have dropped childcare down to 2 or 3 days rather than full time while on m/l/.

Why do people do this? The only reason I can think of is to keep the nursery/c/m place open. But I think I'd rather pay for it and not send them full time than be at home without them

Flame away!

But is it any of your business?

Why does it bother you? I don't care. I wouldn't do it as I couldn't afford to pay for childcare while I was not working, but if other want to that's up to them

I think the family should do whatever works for them, with the change of a new baby I can fully understand why parents would keep the routine of nursery in place so there isn't to much change at once.

Of course it's not. But I'm interested to know, so if people feel they want to share, then here's an invitation to do so.

I second Lentilly.

Because they want to keep things the way they were, to not disrupt their toddlers life more than it already is by the arrival of a sibling?

Because it is much easier to take care of just a baby, than a baby and a toddler? That one seems obvious, no?

But FFS I want to know WHY it's right for their children.

And I KNOW it's none of my business, nobody is obliged to share.

"Because it is much easier to take care of just a baby, than a baby and a toddler? That one seems obvious, no?"

Because they are lightweights and should have stuck with one because they can't cope with two.

That's the judgey conclusion I've come to. But I don't think it's right, I'm sure it's not.

Well, I'm one of those who did, for two main reasons:

1. It was something DD1 didn't have to share with the new baby - she was very proud of being 'a big girl'. By the time DD2 started nursery at 6 month, DD1 was in the big children's room and proud as anything.

2. I wanted DD2 to have the same 1 to 1 bonding that DD1 had, and there was establishing BF to think about too - demand feeding with a toddler is harder!

I did do shorter days & took DD1 out on baby group days so she could play with all the other toddlers, but definitely kept the routine. It worked well, and it helped DD2 integrate into the family without too much sibling rivalry and resentment on DD1's part.

Your OP comes across as rather unsympathetic to those of us who chose this route, as if we must somehow not want to be with our older toddlers - nothing could be further from the truth, we all just have different strategies for managing our families. Different folks, different strokes and all that...

1. They think the toddler benefits from being there - continuity, socialization, activities that the parent may be unable to provide as they would wish with a young baby to take care of.
2. They think the baby benefits from having the undivided attention that the firstborn had.
3. They think the parent benefits from having a break running round after a baby and a toddler all day HTH

I would do it... I have twins and am not planning any more, so I suppose I won't ever know for sure, but I can absolutely see why you would want
a) time alone with your new baby the same as you had with DC1 and
b) for DC one to have continuity at a time when their world at home has undergone a huge upheaval (assuming they enjoy nursery).
Oh and c) a bit of a breather.

THank you.

Interesting responses.

It's helped me realise the crux of it, actually. That people who do this already believe that being at nursery is as good as, or better, for toddlers than being at home with their families is.

So, rightly, those people wouldn't see it as second best.

I'm on mat leave with my 3rd, my three year old twins go to nursery 3 days a week. I could keep them at home, but a) I still have to pay nursery if they are not there (if I give up the places then when I go back to work I have to pay fees and deposit all over again); b) 3 small kids is bloody hard and if you haven't done it, then you can't really judge can you?; c) the twins are potty training and being generally vile at the moment so this takes the pressure off me to be Super Mum and do everything myself.

Catsbum away, it works for us!

I certainly don't think it would be second best for a toddler to spend some of their time at nursery versus spending all their time at home with a frazzled mum of a newborn.

OP I'm assuming you had your toddler at home when DC2 came along then?

d) they enjoy it, so it means I don't have to do soft play and messy play and can just have the safe stuff at home.

Also, when I started to write this there was only one response, I had to wander off and sort a child...

yes : continuity, stability whilst home is in a bit of upheaval, to keep a place, to provide opportunities that might not be on offer if a baby has to be taken into the equation, because they can, because the older child has special needs, because the Mum has PND. Just a few things for you consider.

HTH

Thanks whackamole, I don't judge three days though.

It's interesting to hear what other people says.

I took my firstborn out of childcare altogether when she was 22 months as soon as I went on ML with the second. She had been going 3 days a week while I worked.

I felt guilty about her having to share me with a sibling but found I squared it in my head by thinking that at least the new baby gave her an opportunity to be back at home with me, where I felt she belonged. Cats bum away at that all you like, as I'm sure you all will.

DS1, at age 2, went to nursery for 2 days a week when DS2 was born because he got to socialise and play with a while bunch of children his own age and had a whale of a time. It wasn't second best to being at home.

Do you actually have children?

Welcome to Mumsnet BTW.

OP your words "they are lightwights who should have stuck with one as they can't cope with two" have hit a nerve with me
I am one of those people who decided to only have one child because I am afraid I won't cope with two.
I am quite sad now :(

Hey BALD, be as rude as you like

Why be sad about it Brian? I couldn't cope with four, doesn't make me sad.

FFS.

Disclaimer: I didn't do this but still can see why people would, being in possession of something called "an open mind".

1. Some children like and benefit from child care. Whether or not their parent is at work - its either a great setting or its not, regardless of where the parent is, you can't have it both ways.

1. Keeping the place open

1. Keeping the child's routine

1. Giving the child time away from "the baby"

1. Giving the parent 1 to 1 time with "the baby" to equal things up (because child number 1 had lots of 1 to 1 time with the parent)

1. Because they can afford to

1. Because the child wants to

1. Because its part of the daily routine and will be less of a jolt if the parent returns to work

I could go on, but honestly, can you not see the benefits of these settings, regardless of what the parent is doing, or whether there is a sibling, by the time a child is a toddler? Have you not heard of preschool, etc?

I didn't have a proper ml, I was helping DH run our business while looking after a screaming baby who refused to be put down. DD continued nursery in the mornings only and in the afternoon DH took over screaming baby while I did something with DD.

Judge away.

LOTS of people are missing that the OP is specifically about those who do it FULL TIME. Pay attention if you're going to join in please.

Tatty - you can get most of those benefits by sending them part time.