to wonder why you'd have a child and then leave it for 5 days a week

[incredulousonlooker]

and I don't mean leave it in a nursery while you're at work type thing.
I mean actually LEAVE it on a Sunday night and come back on Friday.

She's only 4 months old ffs. It seems very wrong to me.

saying that if I were the mother and if the baby could be at childcare where she works, then at least she could see the child in the evenings/night and mornings, so that if what I would do, so yean YANBU expecting the mother to take baby with her.

But choceyes - that is for the mothers benefit not the childs - if the baby is in childcare for 9 hours a day at 4 months just so the mum can see her for an hour or so every evening - surely that is worse than spending the full 5 days with the grandparents

YABU. The mother is choosing to leave the child with Grandparents rather than childcare, I think that is perfectly reasonable.

The baby is only 4 months old now, I don't see it as an issue at this stage. I'm not sure it's ideal as the child gets older, perhaps they will consider alternative arrangements in the future.

OP, I agree. Why have a child at all if you don't want to look after it? Someone I knew from toddler groups when my two kids were younger decided she needed a break from being a full-time SAHM to her (at the time) 13 month old and 3 yr old son.

She packed them off to her elderly parents in Germany for a 4 month "holiday".
I was really shocked TBH.

I don't think it matters in the slightest as long as the child is being looked after, and has a loving home while her mother works away. It is family, after all.

I worked abroad while DS1 was between the age of 4mo and 1year. It was horrible leaving him Mon-Fri, but in my case he was with DH, and it was a fixed-term contract so I knew it wasn't forever.

My best friend lived with her grandparents through most of her childhood, because it was more convenient for her schooling; her parents and younger sister lived a few hours away. Again, a loving, caring environment that has done her no harm at all.

Also, may I point out, it's what millions of parents across the third world do - leave the children with grandparents so they can earn money in the cities to bring up the children. Are we to suggest to them that they shouldn't bother having kids?

Well, I think I probably would judge - yes. Doesn't sound ideal at all to have a baby and then neither parent actually look after the baby at all for the vast majority of the time, leaving all the car to grandparents.

Was the baby planned?
Was this arrangement agreed on beforehand?

It does seem very odd and in the long run actually the baby and her relationship with her parents may very well suffer as a result.

I am surprised at how many people on here seem to think that this arrangement is okay and that it won't cause problems in the future.

Thanks for asking. My personal circumstances are that a) I wouldn't choose to have a baby with any random waste of space loser just because the clock was ticking and b) I would expect me (and HIM) to deal with the consequences of that decision not just dump it on obligated GPs and carry on with life as normal

I'm with everybodyssleepyeyed. Possibly it's better for the GPs to have the little girl 5 days a week and for the baby to have some kind of consistency. Who knows, maybe the GPs are 45 years old and this suits them really well to have a baby around. Perhaps the mum is on nightshifts and the childcare really wouldn't cover her work. Who knows, perhaps being all judgy about this isn't fair on the parents and the baby.
It doesn't sound 100% ideal, but many 100% sounding ideal circumstances don't turn out to be ideal either. Back off this young family.

I imagine most of us would not consider this "childcare" option for our children.
I'd rather be skint and get to see my baby every night than do what this woman is doing.
Still, her life, her loss.

Whoever said that if the baby would not see the parents much during the week if they had long work hours is soectacularly missing the point. Babies grow to love and depend on their primary carers. If the parents are not there for 10 mins over breakfast and for 20 minutes at the end of the day, every working day, to have a cuddle, read a story, tuck the baby up, then both the baby and the parents are missing out on something vital.

Babies need more than milk and a clean nappy. Even loving grandparents cannot be substitute parents on a longterm basis.

I have no sympathy at all for mother or father - they both have other options

I feel sorry for child who doesn't know where her home is let alone who her mum and dad are.

Wonder how they broached that with the grandparents too! It's a massive ask, to expect the grandparents to effectively bring up your child for you.

Do we need if this is planned for long term?

yes parents in the third world do leave their kids to work afar BUT that is very different from these circumstances,they have dire poverty compared to us,dont work dont eat let alone pay for education,totally different scale in my opinion

"If the parents are not there for 10 mins over breakfast and for 20 minutes at the end of the day, every working day, to have a cuddle, read a story, tuck the baby up, then both the baby and the parents are missing out on something vital."

So can you explain why my parents' and grandparents' generations seem far less screwed up than my own and younger generations? Because neither of my grandfathers were there during the week before the DC rose or before they went to bed, they worked all the hours god sent to feed and clothe the children. That was far from uncommon back then. I have yet to see what either of my parents or my numerous aunts and uncles are lacking in as a result.

thekidsrule - yes, it's a different scale, but still economics.

The OP mentioned the grandparents were elderly. How tough for them to be dealing full-time with a 4 month old.

Wont anyone think of the poor ickle children?

I think my friend's DD is going to grow up with an amazing, kick-arse role model, personally.

YANBU It's a dreadful situation.

Grahamtribe - but was at least one of the parents there? IME in the past at least one parent, normally mum, was there to be the primary carer even if dad was out at work and didn't see the child.

though ime both parents were around for at some point - if dad started work early in a morning, then he'd often be there at the very end of the day, etc.

And often if you look into history the absent parents - normally fathers due to work - did not have such a close relationship with his child as the mother did.

Also look at the history regarding parents who left children with nannies/governesses all day only being brought down to see parents once a day for a little while. The relationships between child and parents was often lacking in some way, not the nice cosy relationship most children have with mums and dads these days.

I wonder how the parents will feel when this little girl gets to about 8-9 months old and gets very upset at having to spend the weekends away from her Mummy and Daddy - ie. Nanny and Grandad ?

I'd rather have a mother who wanted me and looked after me than a "kick-arse role model".
Whatever that is...

It is a cliché but probably quite true that in the past many, many upper class men (especially) had a closer, more loving relationship with their nannies than with their own mothers and fathers.

Parents tend to love their babies from birth (and when they don't, they certainly beat themselves up aboutit.) whereas children learn to love those who care for them. The biological link means little to them.

I am amazed by the judgemental attitude of some of you. If the situation is working out OK for the people involved, who cares? Get off your high horses, please.

magsaloof

AIBU may not be the place for you. This board is designed for people to get judgey.

My mum worked full-time, long hours, and rose to the top of her profession. She was also an amazing mother, and still is.

That is a kick-arse role model.